Engineering UK 2020
Educational pathways into engineering
Engineering UK 2020
Educational pathways into engineering
Authors
Luke Armitage
Senior Research Analyst, EngineeringUK
Mollie Bourne
Research and Impact Manager, EngineeringUK
Jess Di Simone
Research Officer, EngineeringUK
Anna Jones
Research Officer, EngineeringUK
Stephanie Neave
Head of Research, EngineeringUK
EngineeringUK would like to express sincere
gratitude and special thanks to the following
individuals, who contributed thought pieces or
acted as critical readers for this report:
Amanda Dickins
Head of Impact and Development, STEM Learning
Foreword
A central part of EngineeringUK’s work is to provide educators, policy-makers, industrialists and others with the most
up-to-date analyses and insight. Since 2005, our EngineeringUK State of Engineering report has portrayed the breadth of
the sector, how it is changing and who is working within it, as well as quantifying students on educational pathways into
engineering and considering whether they will meet future workforce needs. Despite numerous changes of government
and educational policy, the 2008 recession and the advent of Brexit, the need for the UK to respond to the COVID-19
pandemic has provided the most uncertain and challenging context to date for our research.
Teresa Frith
Senior Skills Policy Manager, Association of Colleges
Ruth Gilligan
Assistant Director for Equality Charters, AdvanceHE
Aimee Higgins
Director of Employers and Partnerships, The Careers &
Enterprise Company
Peter Mason
Policy Manager, EU research and innovation, Universities UK
International
Rhys Morgan
Director of Engineering and Education, Royal Academy of
Engineering
Olly Newton
Executive Director, Edge Foundation
Our analyses for this report started before the pandemic
began. In light of the current and rapidly changing educational
environment, EngineeringUK has not sought to update our
findings. Instead, Educational Pathways into Engineering
provides a comprehensive picture of where we were in early
2020, detailing the trends in science, technology, engineering
and maths (STEM) educational participation and attainment
across academic and technical pathways into engineering.
This intelligence is valuable for several reasons. First, it shows
the encouraging progress made to this point. Across the UK,
GCSE and A level entries in many engineering-facilitating
subjects have been on the rise, as has the number of first
degree undergraduate entrants to engineering and technology
courses. Technical education reforms have centred on better
preparing students for the world of work, especially in areas for
which there are skills shortages, such as STEM.
But perhaps more importantly, this report highlights the
barriers that existed prior to the pandemic and that are now
likely to make it more challenging to increase the number and
diversity of young people choosing engineering. Over the
coming months, we will need to work together to quickly
understand how the following issues are evolving and what
can be done to mitigate them:
• T
here is underrepresentation of certain groups progressing
into engineering, particularly female students and those
from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. There
are also unequal outcomes for those from minority ethnic
backgrounds that cannot be explained by typical factors.
School closures during the pandemic are likely to accentuate
social disadvantages and introduce new ones. The use of
predicted grades risks embedding societal biases in student
outcomes. Our focus must be on understanding what
causes underrepresentation and tackling it at every
educational stage.
• A
mbitious plans to expand technical education are heavily
reliant on employers and may not have considered the
specific requirements of engineering. It will be even harder to
deliver industry placements in this time of economic
volatility and social distancing. Our dependency on
international staff and students in higher education,
particularly in engineering, also makes the UK vulnerable to
the terms of departure from the EU – and this is more
worrying in light of the pandemic. We must analyse these
impacts on the education system and ensure it is fit to
cultivate the skills needed for the UK, now and into the
future.
We urge those in education, government and industry to work
together to foster the critical engineering and technology skills
needed for the UK to be a leader in innovation and improve
societal and economic resilience and environmental
sustainability. We hope our findings serve to inform these
endeavours and thank all the organisations and individuals
who contributed invaluable insight – via critical review, case
studies and thought pieces – to this report.
EngineeringUK aims to grow the collective impact of work
across the sector to help young people understand what
engineering is, how to get into it, and be motivated and able to
access the educational and training opportunities to pursue a
career in the profession.
Engineering is a varied, stimulating and valuable career and we
need to work harder than ever to ensure that it is accessible for
the current generation of young people – both for their own life
chances and so that we have a diverse and insightful workforce
that enables the UK to thrive.
• E
ngineering has little curriculum presence and there is
limited awareness and understanding of it among young
people and their influencers. We must improve knowledge
of engineering.
We would also like to thank the organisations and individuals
who provided case studies, a complete list of whom can be
found at the back cover of this report.
• W
e have an acute shortage of STEM teachers and they are
likely to experience new pressures and challenges in the year
ahead. We need to support teachers and schools to deliver
high quality STEM education and careers guidance.
Dr Hilary Leevers
Chief Executive
EngineeringUK
Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
3 – Further education
and apprenticeships. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
1 – Harnessing the talent pool . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 – Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
1.1 – Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2 – STEM educational pathways: an overview. . . 10
1.3 – F
acilitators and barriers in STEM educational
choices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2 – The further education landscape. . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 – T levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
3.4 – Higher technical qualifications. . . . . . . . . . . . 74
3.5 – Teaching in the further education sector. . . . 74
1.4 – G
overnment strategies to plug the
skills gap. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.6 – Apprenticeship reforms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1.5 – W
ider sector initiatives to increase STEM
participation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.8 – Apprenticeship trends in Scotland,
Wales and Northern Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.7 – Apprenticeship trends in England. . . . . . . . . . 82
1.6 – Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4 – Higher education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
2 – Secondary education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1 – Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
2.1 – Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 – Engineering and technology in higher
education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
2.2 – T
he secondary education landscape in
England. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.3 – STEM GCSEs in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
2.4 – STEM National 5s in Scotland. . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.5 – STEM A levels in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.6 – STEM Highers and Advanced Highers
in Scotland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
2.7 – STEM teacher shortages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.3 – Engineering and technology students
by level of study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.4 – Engineering and technology students
by gender Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.5 – Engineering and technology students
by ethnicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.6 – Engineering and technology students
by socioeconomic status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.7 – Engineering and technology students
by disability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.8 – Intersectionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.9 – Engineering and technology students
by domicile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Executive summary
There is a widespread
lack of awareness about
engineering. 47% of 11 to
19 year olds said they knew
little or almost nothing about
what engineers do.
STEM education has the potential to address the UK engineering sector’s long-standing skills shortage. The extent to
which this potential is harnessed – and the next generation of engineers cultivated – depends on the educational
opportunities presented to young people and the choices they then make.
In recent years, there has been a strong policy emphasis on using education as a means to better prepare students for the
world of work, especially in areas for which there are skills shortages, such as STEM. This report details the trends in
STEM educational participation and attainment across both academic and technical pathways into engineering. It also
highlights the progress that has been made and the future opportunities and challenges for the engineering community.
Factors influencing
young people
The UK education system is complex, offering a range of
qualifications and subjects at each stage of a young person’s
educational journey. Each stage represents a branching point
at which young people are presented with a series of choices.
These choices are, in turn, shaped by many factors, including
their understanding of the options available, the opportunities
presented to them and their own capabilities and personal
motivations. Evidence suggests that the underrepresentation
of certain groups in engineering, such as women, is in part
driven by differences in these factors. However, there is much
more work to be done to understand how these can be
effectively addressed.
Prior and anticipated future attainment clearly factors into
young people’s educational decision-making processes.
However, pass rates for STEM subjects and non-STEM
subjects at GCSE and A level are broadly similar, suggesting
that young people are not opting out of STEM qualifications
due to disproportionate levels of underachievement during the
compulsory educational stages.
A young person’s perception and knowledge of engineering is
also likely to be a factor in their decision to pursue a career in
the profession. Unfortunately, there is a widespread lack of
awareness about engineering. Almost half (47%) of 11 to 19
year olds said they knew little or almost nothing about what
engineers do. Worse, this limited knowledge is often distorted;
not only is engineering seen as difficult, complicated and dirty,
it is often also considered a man’s profession.
Our findings show young people often doubt their ability to
succeed in STEM. For example, 62% of 16 to 17 year olds in the
UK felt that subjects like science and maths were more difficult
than non-STEM subjects. Swathes of research show that girls
in particular perceive their capability in STEM as unrealistically
low – a striking finding, given that girls outperform boys in
most STEM subjects at GCSE and A level.
A lack of knowledge about relevant STEM educational
pathways can also discourage young people from pursuing
engineering careers. In 2019, just 39% of young people aged 14
to 16 said they ‘know what they need to do next in order to
1
become an engineer’ – and this figure has remained fairly
static over time.
The degree to which young people possess the requisite
knowledge, attitudes and capability to pursue STEM – that is,
their ‘STEM capital’ – is often derived from their parents.
Parents who are themselves engaged in STEM make STEM
familiar for their children, supporting young people during
formative times and guiding them, consciously or otherwise,
so that their self-identity is not at odds with their perceptions
of a STEM identity. Our research suggests that there are strong
socioeconomic and gender dimensions to this.
Teachers’ expectations also have a role to play in the
opportunities available to young people, as well as their beliefs
about their own capabilities and how well they think they can
perform in STEM subjects. However, misallocation in setting
and streaming practices is not uncommon, especially in STEM
subjects, and this is patterned by socioeconomic background,
gender and ethnicity. A study of Year 7 pupils across England,
for example, showed that even after differences in
socioeconomic background had been taken into account, girls
were 1.6 times more likely to be wrongly allocated to a lower
maths set than boys. Similarly, black pupils were 2.5 times
more likely to be misallocated to a lower set in maths than
white pupils.
The accuracy of predicted grades can pose barriers for young
people progressing in STEM, particularly those from
socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds whose grades
are more likely to be under-predicted than their peers. A report
by Cambridge Assessment showed that, of all OCR GCSE
grades reported by teachers in 2014, just 45% of science and
maths and 42% of ICT/technology grades were accurately
predicted.
It is also apparent that key influencers such as parents and
teachers need to be supported so that they, in turn, can
support young people. Fewer than half of STEM secondary
school teachers and under one third of parents express
confidence in giving engineering careers advice, with both
groups reporting low levels of knowledge about engineering. In
addition, teachers across the country are faced with mounting
workloads and time pressures resulting from understaffing
and cuts to school funding.
More generally, schools as institutions can provide both
opportunities and constraints by broadening or restricting
subject options available to students, or by guiding students
towards certain paths. For example, not all schools offer their
students the opportunity to take three separate science
GCSEs, putting them instead on a combined course equivalent
to two GCSEs.
Research suggests that careers education provision in
schools has often been patchy and patterned in ways that are
likely to exacerbate social inequalities. Recent evidence
suggests that efforts to address this issue have been met with
success, with schools serving disadvantaged communities
making demonstrable progress against Gatsby benchmarks
over the last year. But there is still a long way to go to ensure
that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are
receiving the careers advice they need.
Secondary schooling
How well young people do in STEM in secondary schools and
colleges is often a key determinant of whether they will
continue on to further and higher STEM education, training
and employment. The recent increase in GCSE and A level
entries observed in some STEM subjects is therefore
encouraging. However, a lack of presence of engineering in
the curriculum, the persistent underrepresentation of girls in
STEM, a decline in exam entries for some subjects that
facilitate engineering and the acute shortage of STEM
teachers remain key concerns.
Policy developments
Significant reforms to England’s secondary education
qualifications to raise educational standards reached their
final stage in 2019. The changes to STEM qualifications
include more rigorous course content, the removal of almost
all teacher assessment from grades, a move from modular
assessments to final examinations and a new GCSE grading
system.
While these reforms aimed to raise educational standards and
better prepare students for further study and employment,
some research suggests that these have not had their
intended effect. For example, according to a study by the
National Education Union, 73% of teachers believe that
students’ mental health has worsened since the introduction
of reformed GCSEs and 61% believe that student engagement
62%
Young people often doubt their
ability to succeed in STEM. 62%
of 16 to 17 year olds in the UK
felt that subjects like science
and maths were more difficult
than non-STEM subjects.
in education has declined as a result of the reforms.
There is also some evidence that the reforms have led to
greater educational inequality. Research by the Sutton Trust
suggests that before the reforms, non-disadvantaged pupils
were 1.4 times more likely to achieve a GCSE grade C or above
than disadvantaged pupils. However, since the reforms, the
former are 1.6 times more likely to achieve a grade 5 than the
latter.
Concerns within the teaching community have been raised that
the new A levels are not adequately preparing students for the
type of assessments they will face at university, despite being
more rigorous in terms of content and better at promoting
independent learning. For example, STEM A level assessments
are based entirely on examinations at the end of the course.
Conversely, most engineering-related degrees involve frequent
project work, group work and modular tests and examinations
that together constitute a student’s final degree classification.
STEM GCSE entries and attainment
Participation in the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) – a set of
subjects considered to open doors to further study and
employment – continues to be a headline school performance
measure. The government target is for 75% of students to take
the EBacc by 2022. This has benefitted STEM EBacc subjects,
including maths, sciences and computing, which have seen an
increase in entries since the measure was implemented in
2010. However, it may be contributing to the long-term decline
of non-EBacc STEM subjects, which provide essential skills
for the engineering workforce.
Across the UK, the number of entries for GCSEs in maths,
sciences and computing have been rising. At the same time,
entries for design and technology and engineering have been
falling. Entries for maths and double science rose by 4% and
5% respectively in 2019, whereas entries for engineering and
design and technology fell by 31% and 22% respectively.
There continues to be a notable lack of girls taking elective
STEM subjects, such as design and technology, computing
and engineering. The GCSE STEM subject with the lowest
participation among girls is engineering, where only 1 in 10
entries are by girls. Despite this, girls continue to outperform
boys in almost all GCSE STEM subjects, with the widest
performance gaps in engineering, design and technology and
computing.
2
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
In the academic year 2018 to
2019, STEM subjects made up
4 of the top 10 most popular A
level subjects across England,
Wales and Northern Ireland.
74%
FE colleges struggle to
attract sufficiently qualified
engineering teachers. 74%
of college principals rank it as
the most difficult subject to
recruit for.
STEM A level entries and attainment
STEM teacher shortages
Policy developments
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, STEM subjects made up 4
of the top 10 most popular A level subjects across England,
Wales and Northern Ireland. Maths remained in the top spot,
with 12% of total A level entries. There were increases in
entries of 8% to 9% for biology, chemistry and computing, with
a more modest increase for physics (up 3.0%). Entries went
down for maths and further maths (down 6% and 10%,
respectively) and design and technology (down 5%).
The UK secondary education sector has had a longstanding
teacher shortage and recruitment and retention issues are
particularly acute in STEM subjects. The STEM subjects with
the highest teacher vacancy rates in 2018 were information
technology and science, both with 1.6 vacancies for every 100
filled roles. These were followed by mathematics and design
and technology, which each have 1.2 vacancies for every 100
filled roles.
The role technical education can play in addressing the skills
needs of the UK, particularly its STEM skills needs, featured
heavily within the government’s 2017 industrial strategy and
has been the focus of considerable educational reform in
recent years.
Boys are still far more likely than girls to study the STEM A
level subjects that are typical prerequisites for engineering
degrees, including physics (77% male), maths (61% male) and
further maths (71% male). Encouragingly, in 2019 there was an
11% increase in girls taking chemistry and an increase of 5% in
physics.
Consequently, many STEM teachers are not specialists in the
subjects they teach. For instance, only 63% of physics
teachers and 78% of maths teachers have relevant post-A level
qualifications. This can have a bearing on the quality of
teaching young people receive. Analysis by the Department for
Education found a positive association between specialist
teaching in maths and student attainment in the subject at the
end of key stage 4 in England.
The A* to C pass rate for A level maths has dropped by 5
percentage points, which may be due to the introduction of the
new, harder maths curriculum. Girls were more likely than boys
to pass biology, design and technology, maths and physics,
whereas boys performed better than girls in chemistry and
computer science.
STEM Scottish National and Higher qualifications
Unlike in the rest of the UK, engineering has a direct presence
on the secondary school curriculum in Scotland, with
engineering science offered at National 5, Higher and
Advanced Higher levels. Scotland also provides a wider range
of STEM subjects, with applied subjects such as electronics
and woodworking on offer alongside traditional STEM
subjects.
National 5 entries were broadly stable for maths, physics and
chemistry in 2018 to 2019. However, there were worrying
decreases in entries in some engineering facilitating STEM
subjects, including engineering science (down 9%), design and
manufacture (down 3%) and computer science (down 2%).
Maths and chemistry were the most popular STEM subjects at
both Higher and Advanced Higher levels. A to C pass rates fell
in all STEM subjects at Higher level, except for administration
and IT. However, some Advanced Higher subjects, such as
engineering science and design and manufacture, saw large
increases in pass rates.
3
Many STEM teachers are not
specialists in the subjects they
teach. Only 63% of physics
teachers and 78% of maths
teachers have relevant post-A
level qualifications.
There is a clear socioeconomic gradient across England when
it comes to being taught by STEM subject specialist teachers.
Research by the Education Policy Institute found that outside
London, 51% of maths teaching hours were taught by subject
specialists in the least deprived areas, compared with only 37%
in the most deprived areas. For physics, the socioeconomic
gradient outside London is more extreme, with a 35
percentage points gap between the least and most deprived
areas in terms of teaching hours taught by subject specialists
(52% compared with 17% respectively).
Technical education
The technical education landscape is in the midst of
significant change, with a boost in further education funding
and the introduction of new apprenticeship standards, an
apprenticeship levy on large employers and new T level
qualifications. Such reforms offer a key opportunity for the
engineering community to shape a new technical education
system that can address the sector’s skills shortages. Critical
to this will be ensuring that the system adequately takes into
account the often unique and specific requirements of
engineering. It also needs to address longstanding issues,
such as the lack of diversity among apprentices and STEM
teacher shortages.
The apprenticeship system in particular has changed
significantly, moving from a system of ‘frameworks’ to
employer-led ‘standards’. By 2019, some 227 apprenticeship
standards were approved for delivery in engineering-related
areas.
Starting in 2017, employers with an annual salary bill of over £3
million were taxed at 0.5% of their total salary bill to fund new
apprenticeships as an apprenticeship levy. Evidence as to
whether the levy has been effective in promoting
apprenticeships has been mixed. Since it was introduced,
employers have only drawn upon 9% of the available funds,
with many criticising the rigidity of the funds and calling for a
more flexible ‘training levy’. However, estimates by the
Learning and Work Institute suggest that even in its current
form, there is a risk that the apprenticeship levy will be
insufficient and that employers will spend more on
apprenticeships than is available to them from their levy funds.
This is due to the increase in the number of higher level
apprenticeship starts and apprenticeship standards, which
cost more than lower level apprenticeships and apprenticeship
frameworks.
2019 saw the opening of 12 Institutes of Technology that
specialise in higher level technical STEM education. There was
also a £400 million funding boost for 16 to 19 education,
including the classification of further education (FE) courses
such as engineering and construction as ‘high value’, with
financial incentives for providers offering these subjects.
Perhaps one of the most significant changes in technical
education is still to come in the form of T levels, which are due
to be rolled out in 2020. These are 2 year courses developed in
collaboration with industry and intended to have parity of
esteem with A levels. Although surveys suggest this
development is broadly welcomed by employers and providers
alike, some have noted there may be sector-specific
challenges to delivering T levels. For example, engineering is
highly technical and safety and/or legal requirements may
make it difficult for employers to take in students on a shortterm basis to complete the required industry placements.
Women and people
from minority ethnic
backgrounds remain
severely underrepresented
in engineering-related
apprenticeships.
With the introduction of T levels, it is expected that demand for
FE teachers will increase. This may prove to be difficult in a
sector such as engineering, where there is a natural tension
between teaching and addressing the wider skills shortages in
industry.
FE colleges already report that they struggle to attract
sufficiently qualified engineering teachers, with 74% of college
principals ranking it as the most difficult subject to recruit for.
Engineering-related apprenticeship starts
In England, apprenticeship starts in the academic year 2018 to
2019 increased compared with the year before (by 5%).
However, overall they have decreased by 21% since 2014 to
2015, with the largest drop seen immediately after the
introduction of the levy.
Engineering-related apprenticeships have followed a similar
pattern. There was a small year-on-year increase (4%) in the
academic year to 2018 to 2019, but there has still been an
overall decrease of 4% since 2014 to 2015. The smaller drop for
engineering-related areas means that their share of
apprenticeship starts has risen to 26% from 22% in 2014 to
2015.
However, it is apparent that trends in participation vary by level.
Across all engineering-related areas, higher level
apprenticeship starts increased by 52% in 2018 to 2019
compared with the previous year. In contrast, the number of
intermediate level apprenticeship starts has fallen. This is in
line with trends across all apprenticeship sector subject areas
and is a consequence of the shift towards ‘higher quality’
apprenticeships by government, which believes such
apprenticeships will increase productivity in the UK.
Women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds remain
severely underrepresented in engineering-related
apprenticeships. In 2018 to 2019, women made up low
proportions of starts in construction (6%), engineering and
manufacturing (8%) and ICT (20%). Those from minority ethnic
backgrounds made up 5% of starts in construction and 8% in
engineering and manufacturing. In ICT, on the other hand, they
were overrepresented, with 19% of starts.
In Scotland and Wales, engineering-related apprenticeships
represented 34% and 20% of all starts in 2018 to 2019,
respectively. Women comprised just 4% of those on
engineering-related apprenticeships in Scotland, a figure that
4
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Over the past 10 years,
engineering and technology
entries have increased at
first degree undergraduate
and postgraduate research
levels, but declined at
other undergraduate and
postgraduate taught levels.
The UK’s departure from the
EU could have a significant
impact on the HE sector and,
in particular, for subjects like
engineering and technology
where a significant proportion
of students are international.
has not changed significantly in 5 years. In Wales, the
proportion of women on engineering-related apprenticeships
has increased each year since 2014 to 2015 and is now 8%.
Engineering-related apprenticeships were more popular in
Northern Ireland, comprising 61% of total participants.
However, women were again underrepresented, making up just
7% of all engineering-related participants.
Higher education
The future of the HE landscape remains uncertain, with the
UK having left the European Union in January 2020 without a
clear implementation plan for the university sector. There are
widespread concerns that the decision to leave the EU will
make the UK’s HE sector less attractive to international staff
and students and that it will be harder to access EU research
funding and collaborations. HE engineering – which relies
heavily on international students – will need to work hard to
ensure that the UK remains a destination of choice for
students and staff alike. Moreover, women and those from
disadvantaged backgrounds are underrepresented and there
are large degree attainment gaps by ethnicity. Engineering
must therefore also address issues of access and equality in
HE.
Policy developments
By far the most significant legislative change to impact the UK
HE sector in recent years came about in 2017, with the
implementation of the Higher Education and Research Act
(HERA). Among other things, two new bodies were established
under the Act – the Office for Students to regulate the English
HE sector and UK Research and Innovation to oversee research
and funding.
However, it is anticipated that the UK’s departure from the
European Union will have significant impact on the HE sector.
This may be a considerable issue for subjects such as
engineering and technology where a significant proportion of
students, particularly at postgraduate level, are international
(41% of entrants across all levels are international, compared
with 70% of postgraduate taught entrants and 59% of
postgraduate research entrants). In fact, in the year 2018 to
2019, the subject was one of the most popular STEM subjects
studied by EU students, second only to biological sciences.
5
The impact of Brexit cannot be fully understood until the final
arrangements have been decided. Nevertheless, there is
evidence to suggest the UK’s decision to leave the EU has
already had an adverse effect on the university sector in
terms of the degree to which the UK is seen as a desirable
place to study by prospective international students.
Engineering and technology entrants
Trends in engineering and technology HE participation varied
widely by level of study. Over the past 10 years, engineering
and technology entries have increased at first degree
undergraduate and postgraduate research levels, but declined
at other undergraduate and postgraduate taught levels.
Although engineering and technology entries at first degree
undergraduate level have increased by 6% since 2009 to 2010,
this figure was lower than the overall increase in first degree
entries across HE.
Over the past 10 years, the number of other undergraduate
entrants in both engineering and technology and across HE
overall has fallen dramatically. There was a particularly large
drop (31%) across all HE between 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to
2013, when tuition fees were increased.
In the 9 years leading up to the
academic year 2018 to 2019,
the proportion of engineering
and technology entrants who
were female has increased
by 5 percentage points. But
gender disparities remain stark.
30%
Engineering and technology
fares well in terms of ethnic
diversity. In 2018 to 2019, 30%
of entrants were from minority
ethnic backgrounds, which is
higher than among the overall
student population (26%).
ethnic backgrounds, which is higher than among the overall
student population (26%). However, gaps in degree attainment
are an issue. Among minority ethnic engineering and
technology qualifiers, 73% achieved a first or upper second
degree in that academic year, compared with 83% of White
qualifiers. These ethnicity attainment gaps were also observed
across HE more widely, suggesting there is a systemic issue
within the UK HE system that needs to be addressed.
In 2018 to 2019, only 11% of engineering and technology
entrants were from low participation neighbourhoods. This is
lower than across all of HE generally (13%). Moreover, these
figures have remained relatively static over the past 5 years.
Compared with the overall HE population, engineering and
technology also had a low proportion of disabled entrants in
2018 to 2019. Only 8% were disabled compared with 12% of the
wider student cohort. Such underrepresentation highlights the
need for reasonable adjustments to be made to remove
barriers to study.
Since 2009 to 2010, there has been a 5% decrease in
engineering and technology at postgraduate taught level. This
is particularly concerning given that overall HE postgraduate
taught entries rose by 16% over the same period.
At postgraduate research level, there has been a 10% rise in
the number of entries to engineering and technology since
2009 to 2010. This is in line with the overall trend observed in
postgraduate research numbers across HE.
Diversity
In the 9 years leading up to the academic year 2018 to 2019, the
proportion of engineering and technology entrants who were
female has increased by 5 percentage points. But gender
disparities remain stark. Just one in 5 (21%) of all engineering
and technology entrants were women in 2018 to 2019, whereas
they accounted for more than half (57%) of the student
population overall. If trends continue at the same rate, gender
equality will not be attained on these courses for another 3
decades.
Engineering and technology fares better in terms of ethnic
diversity. In 2018 to 2019, 30% of entrants were from minority
6
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
62.2% of young people aged 16
to 17 in the UK feel that subjects
like science or maths are more
difficult than others.
Key points
STEM education has great potential for addressing the skills
crisis in the engineering sector. Unfortunately, however, young
people still tend to opt out of STEM educational pathways,
hindering opportunities to harness the engineering talent pool
via education.
In addition, particular groups continue to be underrepresented
in STEM, notably women, certain minority ethnic groups and
those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Understanding
and addressing the factors that are driving this will enable the
engineering sector to both increase the overall numbers of
young people progressing through STEM educational
pathways and ensure they reflect a range of backgrounds and
experiences, bringing a diversity of thought to the sector.
Factors influencing STEM educational choices
Young people’s educational choices are shaped by many
factors, including their own capabilities, the opportunities
presented to them and their personal motivations. The
engineering community must address all of these components
in order to change the decisions many young people make in
relation to STEM.
There is a widespread lack of awareness about engineering.
Almost half (46.7%) of 11 to 19 year olds say they know little or
almost nothing about what engineers do. Worse, this limited
knowledge is often distorted; not only is engineering seen as
difficult, complicated and dirty, it is also considered a man’s
profession. These inaccurate understandings can be
particularly discouraging for girls and some minority ethnic
groups.
Many young people think STEM is only suitable for those who
are exceptionally clever, which can be a deterrent for those
who are not confident in their academic capabilities. Among
young people aged 16 to 17 in the UK, 62.2% feel that subjects
like science or maths are more difficult than others.
Girls are more likely than boys to perceive themselves as
lacking ability when it comes to STEM. Even though they
outperform boys in most STEM subjects, girls may be opting
for less ‘risky’ subjects in which they think they are more likely
to do well.
Teacher expectations and possible bias could be accentuating
diversity problems in STEM. Students decide which subjects to
study after GCSE based on predicted grades assigned by their
teachers, but only around 16% of these are accurate.
1.1 – Introduction
In 2019, only 23.5% of 11 to
19 year olds had heard about
engineering careers from careers
advisors.
Furthermore, young people who are high achieving but
socioeconomically disadvantaged more often receive underpredicted grades at A level than their more advantaged peers.
Knowledge of how to pursue an engineering career
Worryingly, relatively few young people know what steps they
need to take to pursue an engineering career – just 42% of
boys and 31% of girls aged 11 to 19 say they know what to do
next to become an engineer.
Young people seek education and careers guidance mostly
from parents and teachers. Yet less than half of STEM
secondary school teachers and under one third of parents
express confidence in giving engineering careers advice, with
both groups also reporting low levels of knowledge about
engineering. It is also concerning that in 2019, only 23.5% of
11 to 19 year olds had heard about engineering from careers
advisors.
There is a socioeconomic divide in the type and level of STEM
qualifications pursued. Young people from disadvantaged
backgrounds are more likely to follow vocational routes rather
than academic ones than their more advantaged peers. There
is also a greater likelihood that young people from
disadvantaged backgrounds will leave education with lowerlevel qualifications.
Government, industry and wider sector initiatives to plug
the skills gap
The government has committed to addressing the skills
shortage, as shown by the industrial and careers strategies,
and the introduction of educational reforms such as T levels.
Government and the engineering community have also
endeavoured to boost participation in STEM inspiration
activities, with campaigns such as the Year of Engineering and
This is Engineering. More than one quarter of young people
aged 11 to 19 took part in a STEM inspiration activity in 2018.
There is recognition across the sector of the need to drive up
quality and bring about greater coordination of STEM
inspiration efforts, which has spurred new initiatives such as a
Code of Practice. Engineering employers are also recognising
their key role: many now run or fund their own STEM
engagement programmes, offer invaluable work experience
placements and free up the time of their employees to
volunteer in schools.
STEM skills are more important than ever for the UK’s
economic prosperity. This is particularly true at a time of
increasing international competitiveness, fast-paced
technological change and uncertainty concerning European
politics, migration, free movement and trade. For at least 2
decades, UK government and industry have expressed growing
concerns about the shortage of people with the qualifications
and experience needed to fill vacancies in crucial sectors such
as engineering.1.1 This skills crisis threatens the UK’s ability to
keep pace with other nations and to prepare for the challenges
associated with major political changes, including Brexit.
Many entrants to the UK’s engineering workforce come directly
from education, highlighting the need to grow the potential
talent pool via educational pathways. The engineering sector
includes many diverse and varied occupations. These need
technical expertise and subject-specific knowledge which can,
arguably, only be gained through formal education.
The skills crisis in engineering is being driven by the growing
and ever-changing needs of the sector, coupled with the
tendency of young people to opt out of STEM qualifications. In
addition, there is a concern that the education system doesn’t
always ensure young people are ‘work ready’. Some employers
have questioned graduates’ ‘employability’ in terms of both
adequate subject-specific knowledge and the relevant ‘soft
skills’ needed to succeed in the workplace.1.2
The UK government has pledged to address the skills crisis via
commitments set out in the industrial strategy (2017) and the
STEM skills strategy in Scotland (2019), for example. Efforts
have included establishing a dedicated STEM and Digital Skills
Unit within the Department for Education (DfE) in England,
targeted campaigns such as the Year of Engineering and the
introduction of new technical qualifications. But addressing
this issue is going to be a long-term endeavour and we are yet
to see any sustained upward trend in the take-up of STEM
qualifications.
Addressing the STEM skills crisis is
going to be a long-term endeavour. We
are yet to see any sustained upward
trend in the take-up of STEM
qualifications.
The reasons for the low levels of participation in STEM
education are complex and are not comprehensively
understood. However, one aspect that is well documented is
the continuing underrepresentation of particular groups,
including women, young people from lower socioeconomic
backgrounds and some ethnic groups. This constrains
opportunities for some young people to take up careers in
engineering and reap the benefits associated with these
careers, including higher than average salaries.
STEM qualifications are notably ‘high return’, with engineers
having median full-time earnings of around £10,000 a year
more than the UK workforce as a whole.1.3 In the interests of
promoting social mobility, therefore, it is crucial that social
and/or demographic characteristics do not prevent young
people from taking STEM qualifications. Furthermore, there is
compelling evidence that increased diversity in the workforce
can improve performance through, for example, increased
creativity and innovation.1.4 Addressing the
underrepresentation of particular groups in STEM is an
inextricable part of narrowing the skills gap and, more
generally, improving the UK’s economic prosperity.
Issues of attainment versus issues of choice
It’s important to understand whether low participation rates
in STEM subjects are due to issues relating to attainment or
choice. In other words, is low participation caused by young
people failing to attain the prerequisite grades they need to
pursue further and higher qualifications in STEM subjects?
Or are there other factors that are discouraging them,
including those who are capable?
Attainment is an important consideration, given that young
people are more likely to continue to study subjects in which
they receive higher grades.1.5 However, although young
people’s grades are assumed to reflect their innate academic
ability, other factors can influence how well they perform in
STEM subjects. For example, teaching quality plays an
important role in determining students’ performance and this
can be compromised when there are shortages of specialist
teachers – an issue which is particularly pertinent in STEM, as
we show in Chapter 2.
Average levels of attainment differ between STEM subjects.
Pass rates in individual science subjects at GCSE, for example,
tend to be very high (around 90.0% achieved A* to C/9 to 4
grades in chemistry, biology and physics in 2018 to 2019).
Conversely, pass rates for engineering and maths tend to be
lower (52.5% and 59.6% respectively). The pass rate in double
science is also lower (55.9%), probably because young people
with an affinity for or interest in science are more likely to
opt for the individual sciences, which have a greater depth
of content. These trends are discussed in more detail in
Chapter 2.
Evidence from the Joint Council for Qualifications (Figure 1.1)
shows that pass rates for STEM subjects and non-STEM
subjects at GCSE are similar, with an average 71.7% for STEM
compared with an average 71.4% for non-STEM subjects.
Results are also similar at A level (72.1% average for STEM
and 77.4% for non-STEM). When only maths and physics are
considered, average pass rates tend to be higher than for
STEM as a whole. This suggests that young people are not
opting out of STEM qualifications due to disproportionate
levels of underachievement during the compulsory
educational stages.
All hands are on deck in attempts to harness the talent pool
and promote STEM education to tomorrow’s engineers.
1.1 House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts. ‘Delivering STEM skills for the economy’, 2018.
1.2 UniversitiesUK. ‘Supply and demand for higher-level skills’, 2015.
1.3 MAC. ‘Full review of the shortage occupation list’, 2019.
1.4 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
1.5 Banerjee, P. A. ‘Does continued participation in STEM enrichment and enhancement activities affect school maths attainment?’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2017.
7
8
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Figure 1.1 Average GCSE and A level attainment in STEM and
non-STEM subjects (2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern
Ireland
GCSE
A level
Avg %
attaining
A* to A/9
to 7
Avg %
attaining
A* to C/9
to 4
Avg %
attaining
A*
to A
Avg %
attaining
A*
to C
25.5%
71.7%
27.7%
72.1%
30.1%
75.3%
34.5%
73.1%
Non-STEM
24.1%
71.4%
25.4%
77.4%
All subjects
24.6%
71.5%
26.0%
76.0%
STEM
Maths and
physics only
Source: JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer 2019’ data, 2019.
Subjects included as STEM are additional science, additional science (further), biology,
chemistry, computing, construction, design and technology, economics, engineering, ICT,
mathematics, mathematics (additional), mathematics (further), mathematics (numeracy),
physics, science, science (double award), statistics, other sciences, other technology.
To view this table by nation and with numbers sat, see Figure 1.1 in our Excel resource.
Differences in attainment may, however, be one reason
why some groups are underrepresented in STEM education.
For example, lower average GCSE grades among
socioeconomically disadvantaged pupils could mean that they
don’t meet the requirements to continue studying a subject
and are ineligible for courses in STEM at the post-compulsory
educational stages.1.6 But this doesn’t account for the paradox
in gender. As we show in Chapter 2, girls outperform boys in
most GCSE STEM subjects, yet relatively few go on to study
these subjects at A level. And, as we explain in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4, even fewer progress on to engineering
apprenticeships or degrees. Differences in choice (and the
reasons behind them) are therefore of key importance – over
and above differences in attainment – when it comes to
participation in STEM.
Differences in attainment may be one
reason why some groups are
underrepresented in STEM education,
but this doesn’t tell the full story.
About the data
The data used in this chapter comes from the following
sources:
EngineeringUK Engineering Brand Monitor (EBM): The
EBM is a repeated cross-sectional online panel survey.
The annual survey asks young people aged 7 to 19,
members of the general public and STEM secondary
school teachers about their perceptions, understanding
and knowledge of STEM and engineering. Fieldwork for
the 2019 survey took place between January and March,
with a total sample of over 5,000 across the UK. Post-hoc
weighting based on known characteristics of the
population drawn from Office for National Statistics
estimates was used to make the pupil and public surveys
nationally representative.
Office for National Statistics (ONS) Labour Force Survey
(LFS): The LFS is a UK-wide, nationally representative
survey of around 40,000 households per quarter. This
chapter uses LFS data from the third quarter (July to
September) of 2019. The main aim of the LFS is to enable
analyses of point-in-time measures and changes over time
concerning various aspects of the UK labour market. The
LFS uses calibration weighting using a population
weighting procedure.
Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) Next Steps
(LSYPE1): The Next Steps survey, previously known as the
Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE), is
a major longitudinal study that has followed the lives of
around 16,000 people in England since 2004, when they
were in Year 9. Cohort members are interviewed annually,
collecting information on their educational and labour
market experiences. Analyses of Next Steps data apply
calibration weights, correcting for both the survey design
and non-response.
Department for Education (DfE) Our Future (LSYPE2): The
Our Future survey, also known as the second Longitudinal
Study of Young People in England (LSYPE2), began in 2013
and is one of the largest studies of young people ever
commissioned. It follows a nationally representative
sample of over 13,000 young people who were aged 13 to
14 when the study began, through their final years of
compulsory education and beyond. Our Future collects
information annually, focused on individuals’ careers
choices and the reasons for these choices. Analyses of
Our Future data also apply calibration weights.
1.2 – STEM educational pathways: an overview
To assess what we, the engineering community, can do to
increase rates of participation in STEM education, we must
first improve our understanding of how qualification and
subject choices are formed. Then we can identify when and
how best to intervene.
The UK education system
Figure 1.2 presents an overview of the UK education system.
Throughout England, Wales and Northern Ireland, children
begin their primary education around age 4 with one year of
reception or, in the case of Northern Ireland, a foundation stage
(covering years 1 to 2). Students then progress through key
stage 11.7 (approximately ages 5 to 7) and key stage 2 (ages 7
to 11), finishing their primary schooling around the age of 11.
Following primary school, young people in all 3 countries enter
secondary school and begin key stage 3 (ages 11 to 14).
Key stage 3 ends in year 9 (or year 10 in Northern Ireland),
when most young people in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland have to choose the subjects they would like to study at
GCSE. Some subjects are compulsory (maths, English and
science) and others are elective. Key stage 4 (ages 14 to 16)
covers years 10 and 11 (equivalent to years 11 and 12 in
Northern Ireland), culminating in GCSE exams which mark the
end of lower secondary education. The threshold for
continuation in post-16 academic institutions is often 5 A* to C
(or 9 to 4) grade GCSEs. GCSEs graded D to U (or 5 to 1) result
in level 1 qualifications, whereas GCSEs graded A* to C (or 9 to
4) result in level 2 qualifications.
9
Age 16 therefore presents a crucial branching point for
students in Scotland and Northern Ireland, when they are faced
with their first key educational decision. In Scotland, at age 16
young people can choose an academic route, studying
Highers, which are equivalent to AS levels, and Advanced
Highers, which are equivalent (though slightly more
challenging) than A levels, or they can choose a vocational
route. Those wanting to go on to university tend to opt for the
academic route, which is similar in England and Wales.
Apprenticeship options at age 16 are usually offered at
intermediate level (equivalent to a level 2 qualification, which is
5 passes at GCSE) or advanced level (equivalent to a level 3
qualification or 2 A level passes).
The next important decision point most young people across
the UK are faced with is therefore at age 18, when it is possible,
given the required grades, to:
• c
ontinue on in academic education, usually by taking a first
degree (or undergraduate degree) at a higher education (HE)
institution
• p
ursue other HE qualifications, such as diplomas,
certificates, teaching or nursing qualifications, or foundation
degrees
• p
ursue a higher-level apprenticeship or degree
apprenticeship
• leave education and enter the workforce
Since 2015, young people in England and Wales have been
required to stay on in full-time education or training, including
the option of starting an apprenticeship, until age 18. This
period of education from age 16 to 18 in England and Wales is
key stage 5, also known as the upper secondary educational
level. During this period, young people can take academic AS
level and A level qualifications, usually in a school sixth form or
a sixth form college, or vocational qualifications that
historically have varied widely in terms of subject options,
course materials, and levels and types of qualification.
They may also choose a combination of these options,
including taking a ‘gap year’ before returning to education.
Vocational qualifications are usually taken in sixth form or
further education (FE) colleges. In an attempt to raise the
profile of level 3 vocational qualifications and to make the
further education sector more streamlined, new technical
qualifications – T levels – are being introduced in England
from September 2020 (see Chapter 3 for more information).
Like their academic counterparts, T levels will be 2-year
courses.
Across the UK, young people face key
educational junctures at the ages of
16 and 18. The qualification and subject
choices they make can have long-lasting
implications for their career
opportunities later on in life.
In Scotland, the education system is slightly different. The
primary school years are P1 (equivalent to England’s reception
year) to P7. Secondary education years are S1 to S6, which
usually finish with young people taking National 5
qualifications (broadly equivalent to GCSE).1.8 At this stage in
Scotland, English and maths are compulsory, as is at least one
science and a ‘social’ subject – other subjects are either
elective or made compulsory by individual schools. The
principal difference is that, in contrast to England and Wales
and consistent with Northern Ireland, after the age of 16, young
1.6 Banerjee, P. A. ‘A systematic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools’, Cogent Educ., 2016.
people in Scotland can choose to continue in full-time
education, to do an apprenticeship or take part in workplacebased training, or to leave education altogether and get a job.
Having attained HE qualifications, it is then possible to pursue
postgraduate qualifications, including Masters and Doctoral
degrees or postgraduate teaching qualifications. This option is
increasingly common due to the continuing expansion of the
education sector and a trend of ‘credential inflation’1.9 in the
UK.
1.7 T he national curriculum is split into 5 key stages in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. These represent the level of knowledge expected of children and young people at each
stage of their education. Maintained schools are required to follow the national curriculum, but academies and independent schools can choose not to.
1.8 S ome students in Scotland will instead sit National 4 qualifications, which are less academically advanced.
1.9 Credential inflation occurs when increasing numbers of people gain qualifications (for example with educational expansion). This increase in the number of people with similar
credentials results in a lower return in the labour market, leading more people to pursue higher qualifications to secure a competitive advantage.
10
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Figure 1.2 Overview of the UK education system
AGE 4-11
AGE 11-16
AGE 16-18
(Key stage 3-4)
Maintained schools,
academies, grammar schools,
independent schools, technical
colleges, studio schools
Level 1
· GCSE D-G/3-1
· Functional Skills
(ENG)
· Essential Skills
Qualifications
(NI/WAL)
· Vocational and
Technical
Qualifications
Level 1-3
· National 1-3
· National
Progression
Awards (NPA)
· National
Certificate
Level 4
· National 4
· Scottish
Vocational
Qualifications
(SVQ)
· NPA
· National
Certificate
England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Upper secondary and
further education
(Key stage 5)
School sixth forms, further
education colleges, sixth-form
colleges, training providers
Level 2
· GCSE A*C/9-4
· Functional Skills
(ENG)
· Essential Skills
Qualifications
(NI/WAL)
· Vocational and
Technical
Qualifications
Level 5
· National 5
· Modern
Apprenticeship
· SVQ
· NPA
· National
Certificate
Level 3
· Intermediate/
Foundation
Apprenticeship
(ENG/WAL)
· Traineeship (NI)
· Functional Skills
(ENG)
· Essential Skills
Qualifications
(NI/WAL)
· Vocational and
Technical
Qualifications
Level 6
· Modern
Apprenticeship
· Foundation
Apprenticeship
· NPA
· National
Certificate
· Professional
Development
Award (PDA)
· SVQ
· Apprenticeships
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Qualifications
· GCE AS/A Level
· T levels
· International
Baccalaureate
Level 7
· Higher National
Certificate
· Certificate of
Higher Education
· Modern
Apprenticeship
· PDA
· SVQ
· Scottish
Baccalaureate
· Advanced Higher
Further and
higher education
Postgraduate
education
Universities, university colleges,
further education colleges,
higher education institution,
alternative providers
Universities, university colleges,
further education colleges,
higher education institution,
alternative providers
Level 4
· Higher
Apprenticeship
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Qualifications
· Higher National
Certificate
· Certificate of
Higher Education
(WAL)
Level 8
· Higher National
Diploma
· Diploma of Higher
Education
· Technical
Apprenticeship
· Higher
Apprenticeship
· PDA
· SVQ
Level 5
Level 6
· Foundation Degree
· Higher
Apprenticeship
· Diploma of Higher
Education
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Qualifications
· Higher National
Diploma
· Bachelor’s Degree
· Degree
Apprenticeship
(ENG)
· Higher
Apprenticeship
· Professional
Graduate
Certificate in
Education
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Level 9
Level 10
· Bachelor’s/
Ordinary Degree
· Graduate Diploma
· Graduate
Certificate
· Graduate
Apprenticeship
· Technical
Apprenticeship
· PDA
· SVQ
· Bachelor’s Degree
(Hons)
· Graduate Diploma
· Graduate
Certificate
· Professional
Apprenticeship
· Graduate
Apprenticeship
· PDA
· SVQ
Level 7
· Master’s Degree
· Higher
Apprenticeship
· Degree
Apprenticeship
(ENG)
· Postgraduate
Certificate in
Education
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Level 11
· Master’s Degree
· Postgraduate
Diploma
· Postgraduate
Certificate
· Professional
Apprenticeship
· Graduate
Apprenticeship
· PDA
· SVQ
Level 8
· Doctoral Degree
· Vocational,
Technical and
Professional
Qualifications
· Degree
· Apprenticeship*
· Higher
Apprenticeships*
Level 12
· Doctoral Degree
· Professional
Apprenticeship*
· PDA
Scotland
This overview shows when learners first encounter different stages in the education system. As such, some detail has necessarily been omitted, and some elements are simplified for ease of
interpretation and comparability. For example, the age at which qualifications are taken can vary due to: examinations being taken early; exam retakes in the event of initial failure; returners to
education; or nation differences.
11
Compulsory education
England and Wales
(Key stage 1-2)
Compulsory education
Northern Ireland and Scotland
Lower secondary
education
Primary
education
AGE 18+
In some parts of the UK, students progress through 3 stages of schooling: primary school, middle school and high school. Variations of this kind have been omitted for the sake of simplicity.
The lists of qualifications underneath each heading are intended to serve as examples and are not exhaustive. Level 2 qualifications for England, Northern Ireland and Wales have been divided
into 2 boxes as apprenticeships are only available to learners aged 16 or older. * Indicates apprenticeships not yet developed.
12
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Source: ONS. ‘Quarterly Labour Force Survey, July to September 2019’ data, 2019.
1.10 House of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts. ‘Delivering STEM skills for the economy Forty-Seventh Report of Session 2017-19 Report, together with formal minutes
relating to the report’, 2018.
1.11 Raabe, I. J. et al. ‘The Social Pipeline: How Friend Influence and Peer Exposure Widen the STEM Gender Gap’, Sociol. Educ., 2019.
1.12 Iannelli, C. and Duta, A. ‘Inequalities in school leavers’ labour market outcomes: do school subject choices matter?’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2018.
1.13 A
nders, J. et al. ‘The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2018.
1.14 T
hroughout this chapter, references to those in ‘engineering occupations’ denotes those with Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes that fall within the core and related
engineering jobs as classified within EngineeringUK’s engineering footprint. For more detailed information on the engineering footprint, see EngineeringUK’s 2018 report ‘The
State of Engineering’.
1.15 N
ot all schools offer their pupils the opportunity to study triple science and there is evidence that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to be given the
choice. For more information, see: EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
1.16 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
1.17 UCAS. ‘Engineering & Technology Subject Guide’, 2019.
13
An underrepresentation of those from
disadvantaged backgrounds in higherlevel apprenticeships and academic
STEM pathways may result in an
engineering workforce that is stratified
by socioeconomic status.
Psychologica74.6%
Physical
l
76.3%
bl
MO
em
on
en
t
e n tiv
TI V A TI O N
Sources of behaviour
Co
T raini n g
S ervic
e pr o visio
Intervention functions
i s a ti o n
OP
TY
io n
Students who take triple science at GCSE are more likely to
remain in STEM education at later stages than those who do
not.1.16 In addition, maths and physics are often the prerequisite A levels or Advanced Highers that are needed to
study engineering and technology at degree level.1.17 Both of
these may be an obstacle for some groups. For instance,
students from less advantaged backgrounds are less likely to
be offered the opportunity to take triple science at school than
their more advantaged peers.1.18 And the pre-requisites for
The aim must not simply be to funnel more young people into
engineering careers via STEM education, but also to ensure
that young people from all backgrounds have the opportunity
to pursue higher-level STEM qualifications. We also need to
ensure they are encouraged and inspired to do so, for the
benefit of each individual, the sector and the wider UK
economy.
al
Educa
tion
s
ction
stri
Re
rre
c
at
It is widely accepted that maths and physics are important at
secondary education stages, providing the essential
knowledge and skills base required for most kinds of
engineering jobs. However, although it is compulsory for pupils
to study maths and science at GCSE level in England, for
example, the depth of material covered can vary. For example,
pupils can elect to take additional numeracy-based GCSEs, like
further maths or statistics, and in some schools pupils can
choose between double or triple science (the latter involving a
greater depth of material).1.15
Envir
o
Socia nme
l pl nta
an
nin l/
g
es
elin
d
i
Gu
In c
Clearly, the current engineering workforce holds a wide variety
of qualifications. Nevertheless, there is some consensus on
which subjects contain the most relevant material and will
keep young people’s options open at the more advanced
stages of typical engineering educational pathways.
In engineering, we particularly need to fill vacancies in level 3+
occupations. Given that need, if those from disadvantaged
backgrounds are underrepresented in higher-level
apprenticeships1.23 and academic STEM pathways, this may
result in an engineering workforce which is stratified by
socioeconomic status. This may, however, change with the
introduction of new qualifications such as T levels that are
intended to be achieve parity of esteem with academic
equivalents.
sl
Source: ONS. ‘Quarterly Labour Force Survey, July to September 2019’ data, 2019.
Subject areas with a proportion of less than 2% have been omitted.
Figure 1.5 The COM-B model of behavioural change
Le
gi
2.2%
n
Humanities
tio
2.2%
So
ci a
l
4.6%
Mass communications and documentation
unication/
mm
Co arketing
M
4.1%
Biological sciences
• a
utomatic and reflective Motivation to enact the behaviour,
where automatic refers to their emotions and drives, and
reflective refers to their planning and intentions
on
usi
rsa
Pe
No qualification
5.0%
Y
UNIT
RT
PO
7.1%
6.1%
Social studies
e
Other qualification
Arts
• Opportunity for the behaviour afforded by the physical and/
or social environment (such as so cial support and
availability of information)
a
15.5%
8.7%
En
GCSE grades A*-C or above
Physical/Environmental sciences
ti
39.4%
9.3%
la
A level equivalent or above
Business and financial studies
• p
sychological or physical Capability to carry out the
behaviour (for example their knowledge or skillset)
gu
33.9%
10.2%
Re
Degree or equivalent
Architecture and related studies
iv
ct
fle
Re
Working in engineering
occupations (%)
20.2%
l
ica
Highest educational qualification
23.4%
Mathematical sciences and computing
Designed following a systematic review of behaviour change
interventions and consultation with behaviour change experts,
the model considers Behaviour to be a function of an
individual’s:
M o d e lli n g
Figure 1.3 Highest educational qualification among those in
engineering occupations (2019) – UK
Engineering
There are patterns in participation by, for example,
socioeconomic background. Young people from
disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to pursue
vocational, rather than academic, qualifications compared with
their more advantaged peers1.20 and are more likely to leave
education with lower-level qualifications. Both of these can put
them on the back foot when entering the labour market.
Historically, lower-level and vocational qualifications have
been low return relative to their higher-level and academic
counterparts, with academic qualifications above level 3
shown to lead to higher pay than their vocational
equivalents.1.21 Young people from disadvantaged
backgrounds are also far less likely than their better off peers
to start high quality apprenticeships.1.22
However, these factors can generally be organised into the
Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B)
model.1.24 This is a framework for understanding the
processes, barriers and facilitators that help to shape an
individual’s behaviour.
ys
Ph
However, it is also true that people arrive at engineering
careers via a multitude of different pathways, which don’t
always involve higher level qualifications or studying subjects
which are typically considered as STEM. Looking at the
educational qualifications of the current engineering
workforce (Figure 1.3), 33.9% have a degree as their highest
level of qualification, 39.4% have level 3 qualifications or above,
15.5% have level 2 qualifications and 4.2% have no
qualifications at all.
Working in engineering
occupations (%)
The range of factors that influence young people when making
their educational choices is widely documented and the
complexities of choice processes are well recognised. There is
no ‘one-size-fits-all’ explanation.
tic
Early specialisation works to the detriment of engineering in
particular, as this does not have a place in the national
curriculum. If young people are not aware of engineering as a
current or future subject option, they are less likely to consider
it as a career or be aware of the educational pathways required
to pursue it. Concerns about the ‘leaky pipeline’ in STEM are, in
this sense, well founded.
Main degree subject area
Different types of STEM qualifications and their
opportunities for social mobility
Different types of STEM qualifications lead to different
engineering occupations, which vary in terms of salary, job
security and longer-term promotion and income prospects.
This has implications for the extent to which STEM education,
and the engineering sector more generally, can provide
opportunities for social mobility.
1.3 – Facilitators and barriers in STEM
educational choices
Au
tom
a
The options chosen at any given point in a younger person’s
education can have long-term implications,1.12 potentially
resulting in young people inadvertently restricting the
opportunities available to them later on. Researchers from the
Institute of Education have commented on how problematic
this can be, in particular in the English educational system,
where specialisation and subject selection happens relatively
early on.1.13
Figure 1.4 Main degree subject areas among those in
engineering occupations with degree-level qualifications
(2019) – UK
engineering degree courses are off-putting for women in
particular – for example, when UCL removed the requirement
for maths and physics A levels for entry onto their engineering
undergraduate degree courses, they saw a surge in enrolments
among women.1.19
Envi
r
rest onem
ruc
tu ent
rin
g
CAP
AB
IL
I
The ‘pipeline’ analogy is often referenced in relation to STEM
careers because young people will typically need to choose
particular elective subjects relatively early on, serving as
prerequisites to further, and then higher, STEM qualifications.
STEM educational pathways are therefore often considered to
be linear, since it is difficult ‘or even structurally impossible’1.11
to join the STEM educational route at later stages.
Among those in engineering occupations1.14 with a degree,
almost one quarter (23.4%) studied engineering as their main
subject, 20.2% studied mathematical sciences and computing
and 10.2% studied architecture. However, as Figure 1.4 shows,
some people in engineering occupations have degrees in
subjects that are not STEM-related: for example, 6.1% of
engineers have a degree in arts, 5.0% in social studies and
2.2% in humanities.
Fiscal Meas
ure
s
Engineering-facilitating pathways
At each of the educational stages depicted in Figure 1.2, young
people will have to choose both the subjects they want to study
and the type of qualifications they want to take. But defining
the parameters of what constitutes an ‘engineering-facilitating
educational pathway’ is difficult, not least because there is no
universally accepted definition of STEM.1.10
n
Policy categories
Source: Michie, S., et al. 'The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and
designing behaviour change interventions'. Implement. Sci., 2011.
1.18 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
1.19 Evening Standard. ‘Women push for places on UCL engineering course after it dropped need for physics and maths A level’ [online], accessed 31/03/2020.
1.20 CVER. ‘Peer effects and social influence in post-16 educational choice’, 2017.
1.21 NFER. ‘2019 Review of the Value of Vocational Qualifications’, 2019.
1.22 Sutton Trust. ‘BETTER apprenticeships’, 2017.
1.23 QA. ‘The Social Mobility Impact of Apprenticeships’, 2019.
1.24 Michie, S. et al. ‘The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions’, Implement. Sci., 2011.
14
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Such a framework can serve as a useful reminder that if we are to
increase the engineering talent pool, it is not enough to increase
just one set of factors, such as devoting our attention wholly to
inspiration building. We must recognise that changes in behaviour
are dependent on young people being motivated to pursue
engineering as a profession and also them possessing the
capabilities and being given the opportunities to realise any such
ambitions.
This section will review evidence relating to the facilitators and
barriers in STEM education choices, all of which can be
understood in the context of the COM-B model.
Limited knowledge, misconceptions and narrow
stereotypes
A widespread lack of awareness about engineering, including a
limited of knowledge of what careers in engineering entail, is a key
problem for the sector. Among young people aged 11 to 19
surveyed as part of EngineeringUK’s 2019 ‘Engineering Brand
Monitor’ (EBM), almost half (46.7%) reported that they know little
or almost nothing about what people working in engineering do.
As Figure 1.6 shows, their awareness doesn’t appear to improve
as they get older.
Figure 1.6 Knowledge of engineering careers among 11 to 19
year olds by age group (2019) – UK
76.4%
23.6%
25.4%
Age 11-14
Know a lot
76.3%
74.6%
Age 14-16
23.8%
Age 16-19
Do not know a lot
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘How much do you know about what people working in engineering do?’ Percentages
represent the proportions reporting they know ‘4 – quite a lot’ or ‘5 – a lot’ on a 5-point Likert
scale, compared with the proportions reporting they know ‘1 – almost nothing’, ‘2 – a little’ or
‘1 – something’.
To view this chart by gender and ethnicity, see Figure 1.6-1.6a in our Excel resource.
Worse, their limited knowledge is often coloured by narrow and
outdated stereotypes of the profession. The ‘Draw an Engineer
Test’ (DAET) conducted in the US in 2004 highlighted the
importance of images in communicating messages to young
people and the potential damage that inaccurate or incomplete
understandings can have on forming perceptions and
influencing decisions.1.25 As the study reports, “while the
concepts are theoretical, the implications are concrete.” Both
preconceived misconceptions and ‘conventional’
understandings of engineers prevailed among students – a
finding which is also borne out in the UK.1.26
Studies have shown that young people
imagine a typical peer who favours
science over other subjects as being
someone ‘less attractive, less popular,
and less socially competent’.
Recent results from the EBM showed that nearly a third of
young people see engineering as “too complicated”, “difficult”,
“boring” or “dull”, and one fifth view it as “too technical” or
“dirty”, “greasy” or “messy”.1.27 Previous studies have shown
that young people typically consider their peers who favour
science as being “less attractive, less popular and less socially
competent” than those who favour the humanities.1.28 This
persistent ‘hard hat’ image of engineering can hinder young
people’s motivations to pursue a career in the profession.
These stereotypes are also often gendered. The view of
engineering as a masculine profession is not uncommon,1.29
which can serve to demotivate young women in particular from
pursuing engineering careers. Among young people aged 11 to
19, 13% of girls who said they don’t consider a career in
engineering desirable indicated it was because engineering is
not well suited to their gender. Responses included that
engineering is “for boys” (girl aged 14 to 16) and that it is “hard
for women” (girl aged 16 to 19). The 2019 EBM also found that
parents of girls were less likely to recommend an engineering
career to their children than the parents of boys.1.30
Inaccurate and incomplete knowledge about engineering
careers can be off-putting for young people. With engineering
lacking a presence in the curriculum, it is crucial that those
within and outside the education sector make efforts to
promote the profession by correcting misunderstandings and
fostering a motivation to pursue STEM.
Perceptions of engineering
Misinformation is not the only demotivating factor. Negative
perceptions of STEM subjects and of engineering careers can
also be damaging.
Evidence from EngineeringUK’s 2019 EBM suggests that only
half of 11 to 19 year olds in the UK hold positive views of
engineering.1.31 This is significantly lower than for other areas
of STEM: 68% hold positive perceptions of technology, 63%
hold positive perceptions of science and 56% hold positive
perceptions of maths. This finding is driven in large part by
particularly poor perceptions of engineering among girls, an
issue that can be observed from a relatively early age. Among
girls aged 7 to 11, just 41% hold positive perceptions of
engineering compared with 59% of boys. This pattern persists
among older age groups, with an 18 to 20 percentage point
gender gap among young people aged 16 to 19.
1.25 K night, M. and Cunningham, C. ‘Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering’, ASEE Annual Conference
Proceedings 2004.
1.26 EngineeringUK. ‘Gender disparity in engineering’, 2018.
1.27 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’, 2019.
1.28 Taconis, R. and Kessels, U. ‘How Choosing Science depends on Students’ Individual Fit to ‘Science Culture’’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2009.
1.29 EngineeringUK. ‘Gender disparity in engineering’, 2018.
1.30 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’, 2019.
1.31 Ibid.
15
Figure 1.7 Perceptions and desirability of careers in
engineering among 11 to 19 year olds by gender (2019) – UK
Figure 1.8 Positive and negative influences on the perceptions
of engineering among 11 to 19 year olds (2019) – UK
Positive
influence on
perceptions
(%)
Negative
influence on
perceptions
(%)
Family
57.6%
13.4%
Perceptions of salary
57.1%
16.1%
Science exhibitions/museums
56.2%
15.5%
Course tutors/lecturers/teachers
55.3%
14.3%
Engineering activities in school
55.3%
17.2%
Careers advisor coming into school
55.2%
13.6%
Science programmes on TV
55.0%
16.5%
Internet
54.6%
13.5%
Speakers coming into school
54.6%
14.0%
Prestige
52.6%
14.8%
Friends
47.6%
16.3%
Celebrities
28.5%
27.4%
59.5%
49.9%
49.2%
39.7%
40.9%
32.1%
Overall
Male
Female
Positive perceptions
Overall
Male
Female
Engineering seen as desirable
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘How positive or negative is your view on engineering?’ Percentages represent the
proportions reporting ‘4 - quite positive’ or ‘5 - very positive’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1
representing ‘very negative’ and 5 representing ‘very positive’.
Q: ‘How desirable do you believe a career in engineering to be?’ Percentages represent the
proportions reporting ‘4 – quite desirable’ or ‘5 – very desirable’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with
1 representing ‘not at all desirable’ and 5 representing ‘very desirable’.
To view this chart by age group and ethnicity, see Figure 1.7-1.7a in our Excel resource.
Young people cited family, salary expectations and taking part
in science-related activities outside school as being among
the most positive influences on their perceptions of
engineering, as shown in Figure 1.8.
Interestingly, over one quarter (27.4%) said that celebrities had
a negative influence on their perceptions of engineering,
perhaps indicating that some young people are put off
engineering because it appears to be less glamorous or
fashionable than other careers. Comments by some
respondents to EngineeringUK’s EBM reinforce this assertion,
with one girl aged 16 to 19 stating: “[engineering is] not a
glamorous job. Wouldn’t enjoy it”.
Young people need more than just the
motivation to pursue engineering as a
career – they must also possess the
capability and be offered the opportunity
to realise this aspiration.
Source: EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’ data, 2019.
Q: ‘How positively or negatively do the following influence your perceptions of engineering?’
Percentages represent the proportions selecting a positive (left hand column) or negative
(right hand column) value on a scale ranging from ‘-10 – very negative’ to ‘10 – very positive’,
with 0 representing a ‘neutral’ response.
There is a pressing need for the engineering community to
combat negative perceptions of the profession. Encouragingly,
much work is being done in this area. For example, campaigns
such as ‘This is Engineering’ are seeking to overhaul the image
of the profession, emphasising its key role in fields ranging
from fashion and film to sport, music and technology.
However, young people need more than just the motivation to
pursue engineering as a career – they must also possess the
capability and be offered the opportunity to realise this
aspiration.
Self-efficacy and (mis)alignment between self-identity
and STEM identity
There is a widespread belief that STEM is only for the brainy.1.32
This can be a deterrent for those who are not confident about
their academic capabilities. In a nationally representative
sample of young people aged 16 to 17 in England, 62.2% felt
that ‘subjects like science or maths are more difficult than
others’.1.33
62.2% of young people aged 16 to 17 in
England feel that ‘subjects like science
or maths are more difficult than others’.
1.32 Archer, L. et al. ‘Young people’s science and career aspirations, age 10 – 14’, King’s Coll. London Dep. Educ. Prof. Stud., 2013.
1.33 CLS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 3’ data, 2006.
16
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
There is evidence that young people who are more confident in
their own abilities are more likely to pursue STEM education.
Among young people aged 14 to 15 who agreed that they get
good marks for their work, 53.0% planned to take triple science
at GCSE compared with just 36.1% of those who didn’t agree
that they get good marks for their work.1.34
In the 2019 EBM, 40% of the reasons given by young people
aged 11 to 19 who said they didn’t think they could become an
engineer if they wanted to related to a self-perceived lack of
ability or knowledge.1.35 Some responses were very selfdeprecating, including “I don’t study topics related to it and am
too stupid” (boy aged 16 to 19), “I have a simple mind” (girl
aged 11 to 14) and “I am not brainy enough” (boy aged 11 to
14).
Swathes of research show that girls in particular perceive their
capability in STEM as unrealistically low – that is, they have a
low self-belief in their ability to do well in STEM.1.36, 1.37 In the
2019 EBM, when asked whether they thought they could
become an engineer if they wanted to, just 55.7% of girls aged
11 to 14 said yes compared with 71.4% of boys (see Figure 1.9).
This was even lower among those aged 16 to 19, at 53.4% for
girls. Such findings are striking, given that girls outperform
boys in most STEM subjects at GCSE and A level.
Figure 1.9 Engineering self-efficacy among 11 to 19 year olds
by gender and age group (2019) – UK
71.4%
69.5%
63.8%
55.7%
Overall
Male
Female Overall
Age 11-14
66.3%
61.8%
53.7%
Male
59.9%
53.4%
Female Overall
Age 14-16
Male
Female
Age 16-19
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘And if you wanted to, do you think you could become an engineer?’ Proportions represent
the percentages reporting ‘3 – yes, probably’ or 4 – yes, definitely’ on a 5-point scale with
other values representing ‘1 – no, definitely not’, ‘2 – no, probably not’ and ‘5 – unsure’.
To view this chart by ethnicity, see Figure 1.9a in our Excel resource.
Lower self-belief in STEM abilities
among girls is driven in part by a
misalignment between their selfidentities and what they perceive STEM
identities to be.
While the root causes are undoubtedly complex, it’s clear that
girls’ lower belief in their abilities in STEM is driven in part by a
misalignment between their self-identities and what they
perceive STEM identities to be. Responses from girls aged 11
to 19 in the 2019 EBM who said that they didn’t see a career in
engineering as desirable included “I can’t see myself as an
engineer” (girl aged 14 to 16), “It isn’t my type of career” (girl
aged 11 to 14) and “I’m not technical. I’m a diva” (girl aged 11 to
14).
Given the widespread misconceptions of engineers and
engineering careers, young people who think STEM education
or engineering careers don’t fit with their self-image or are “not
for people like me” may be mistaken. Women are
disproportionately affected by this mismatch between selfidentity and STEM identity,1.38 as are some minority ethnic
groups, including black students in particular.1.39
It is important that young people are made to feel as if they are
capable of achieving whatever they set their mind to. They
need to be encouraged to make ambitious choices that might
encourage positive behaviours and choices related to STEM.
Case study – An advocate for women in
engineering
Natalie Cheung, STEM Ambassador Coordinator,
STEM Learning
At 17, I was the only girl in my maths, computing and
physics A level classes, and it was clear to me that my
male classmates were much more confident in their
abilities than my female classmates. But I didn’t let this put
me off – I went on to do a degree in civil engineering and
started volunteering as a STEM Ambassador to set an
example and to encourage others, particularly girls, to
consider doing the same.
Having seen first-hand the hugely positive effect that role
models can have in inspiring young people to consider
STEM careers, I decided to move into my current role as
STEM Ambassador Coordinator at STEM Learning. I help
deliver the programme across London, which involves
recruiting, training and supporting diverse STEM role
models to volunteer in schools, museums, youth groups,
science festivals, and so on.
I also work to promote diversity in STEM by sitting on the
Women’s Engineering Society Council and the Institution
of Civil Engineers Inspiration Panel and being part of the
Women’s Engineering Society London Team, which
organised their first work shadowing week in 2019. I was
on the Tomorrow’s Engineers Week Big Assembly Panel
and I’ve given a TED-Ed talk to share my experience as a
proud female engineer!
1.34 DfE. ‘Our Future (LSYPE2), wave 2’ data, 2014.
1.35 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’ data, 2019.
1.36 Lyons, T. ‘Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2006.
1.37 Sjaastad, J. ‘Sources of Inspiration: The role of significant persons in young people’s choice of science in higher education’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2012.
1.38 WISE. ‘“Not for people like me?” Under-represented groups in science, technology and engineering’, 2014.
1.39 Archer, L. et al. ‘Is science for us? Black students’ and parents’ views of science and science careers’, Sci. Educ., 2015.
17
The trade-off between ‘high-risk’ and ‘high-return’ in STEM
STEM subjects are ‘high return’, with associated careers
tending to offer higher salaries than other occupations. Young
people seem to be aware of this. Among a nationally
representative sample of young people in year 11 in England
who were planning to go to university, 74.0% agreed or strongly
agreed with the statement that ‘people with science or maths
degrees are in demand by employers’ and 45.1% agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement that ‘people with science or
maths degrees will usually get better paid jobs than students
with other types of degree’.1.40
This could serve as a ‘pull factor’ – if young people expect to
be highly remunerated in future, they may be encouraged to
pursue STEM educational pathways. However, when young
people consider all their options, it is likely they will also factor
in their perceived chances of success in each one. The
commonly held view that STEM subjects tend to be more
difficult than others could then serve as an offsetting ‘push
factor’.
In the STEM context, these aspects may result in different
socioeconomic and ethnic groups, and boys and girls, making
different choices. Students from lower socioeconomic groups,
for example, tend to achieve lower grades than their peers from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds,1.41 which could act as a
deterrent for them.
A study looking into the intersectionalities in individuals’
characteristics as a way of predicting STEM choices showed
that young women from more advantaged backgrounds are
more likely to choose STEM subjects. Meanwhile, their peers
from more disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to take
social sciences, law and business, and administrative subjects
– these are generally high return, but are not considered to be
as difficult as STEM subjects.1.42 This is consistent with the
notion that individuals are inclined to be relatively risk averse.
In other words, it may be that more advantaged female
students are choosing ‘riskier’ options because they perceive
the consequences of failure would not be so dire for them:
should they fail, they have a safety net in the form of financial
support from their family.1.43
Female students from advantaged
backgrounds may be choosing ‘riskier’
educational options, including STEM
subjects, knowing that consequences
in the event of failure are unlikely to
be dire.
In relation to the gender gap, it may also be that girls’ high
performance in ‘low risk’, non-STEM subjects encourages
them to pursue these instead of STEM. Girls outperform boys
in verbal skills and tend to have comparative advantages in
subjects such as English and languages. Even if they do well in
STEM, leading them to perceive their chances of succeeding in
other subjects as favourable as compared to STEM, even if
they do well.1.44
Teacher expectations and assessments of ability in STEM
Continuing to higher level study in STEM is less attractive for
young people who don’t think they will achieve good grades in
those subjects and may have limited opportunities to do so. In
part, this is because young people usually need to demonstrate
their competence in order to continue along any given
educational pathway – university offers, for example, are often
conditional on attainment in relevant subjects at A level.
Teachers’ expectations have a role to play in the opportunities
available to young people, as well as their beliefs about their
own capabilities and how well they think they can do in STEM
subjects. A large body of evidence has shown that teachers’
expectations can affect the way they think of and behave
towards their students. This introduces a bias – which may be
positive or negative – that students internalise and can in turn
affect their performance.1.45
Such issues can take root before young people are faced with
any educational choices. In the UK, many students experience
setting and streaming at school (essentially, ability
grouping).1.46 This tends to happen relatively early on in pupils’
educational careers, resulting in levels of ability being judged
prematurely and in some cases according to teachers’
assessments, which may be relatively subjective. This can
thwart young people’s opportunities to achieve the best
possible grades.1.47
Misallocation in setting and streaming practices is not
uncommon.1.48 This is of particular concern in STEM subjects,
where ability grouping is most often used.1.49, 1.50 OECD figures
from 2013 suggested that 95% of students in England were
taught in ability groups in maths.1.51 What’s more, studies have
shown that misallocation can be a particular problem for those
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds,1.52 and is also
patterned by gender and ethnicity. A study of Year 7 pupils
across England, for example, showed that even after
differences in socioeconomic background had been taken into
account, girls were 1.55 times more likely to be wrongly
allocated to a lower maths set than boys. Similarly, black pupils
were 2.54 times more likely to be misallocated to a lower set in
maths than white pupils.1.53
1.40 CLS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 4’ data, 2007.
1.41 J
oseph Rowntree Foundation. ‘Poorer children’s educational attainment: how important are attitudes and behaviour?’, 2010.
1.42 C
odiroli Mcmaster, N. ‘Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and
ethnicity in determining choice’, Br. Educ. Res. J., 2017.
1.43 Ibid.
1.44 R
aabe, I. J. et al. ‘The Social Pipeline: How Friend Influence and Peer Exposure Widen the STEM Gender Gap’, Sociol. Educ., 2019.
1.45 J
ussim, L. et al. ‘Teacher expectations and self-fulfilling prophecies’, 2009.
1.46 ‘Setting’ tends to involve grouping pupils by ability for particular classes, such as maths and English, whereas ‘streaming’ tends to involve grouping pupils by ability for all or most
of their lessons, regardless of the subject.
1.47 E
EF. ‘Setting or streaming’, 2015.
1.48 U
CL, IOE. ‘IOE research raises concerns about setting’ [online], accessed 20/03/2020.
1.49 C
odiroli Mcmaster, N. ‘Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and
ethnicity in determining choice’, Br. Educ. Res. J., 2017.
1.50 K
utnick, P. et al. ‘The Effects of Pupil Grouping: Literature Review (No. 688)’, Dep. Educ. Ski., 2005.
1.51 M
azenod, A. et al. ‘Nurturing learning or encouraging dependency? Teacher constructions of students in lower attainment groups in English secondary schools’, Cambridge J.
Educ., 2019.
1.52 E
EF. ‘Setting or streaming’, 2015.
1.53 U
CL, IOE. ‘IOE research raises concerns about setting’ [online], accessed 20/03/2020.
18
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Only around 16% of predicted A level
results are correct. Important life
decisions, such as whether or not to
apply to university, are therefore being
made on the basis of inaccurate advice.
Similar concerns relate to the effects of the predicted grades
system. Students often make decisions about what route to
take after GCSEs and which, if any, universities to apply to after
A levels, based on predicted grades assigned by their teachers.
A study by the University and College Union (UCU) has
suggested that these predictions are very often inaccurate,
with only around 16% of predicted A level grades being correct.
When this happens, it can be a massive problem for young
people.1.54
Furthermore, there is a host of evidence to suggest that,
similar to misallocations in ability grouping, the system of
predicted grades is also often unfair. For example, high
achieving young people from disadvantaged backgrounds
have been found to receive under-predicted grades at A level
more often than their more advantaged peers.1.55
The effect of this on pupils’ confidence in their capabilities, as
well as on the opportunities (or lack of) they are subsequently
presented with, is worrying, particularly if these practices are
perpetuating the underrepresentation of specific groups.
Important life decisions, such as whether or not to apply to
university, are being made on the basis of inaccurate advice. It
is crucial that steps are taken to avoid unconscious teacher
bias or institutional discrimination that may contribute to
educational inequalities and the STEM skills shortage.
The accuracy of predicted grades can pose barriers for young
people progressing in STEM, but this isn’t a problem that only
affects maths and science. A report by Cambridge
Assessment showed that, of all OCR GCSE grades reported by
teachers in 2014, 45% of science and maths and 42% of ICT/
technology grades were accurately predicted, compared with
44% across all subjects. Similarly, 41% of maths and science
and 45% of ICT/technology grades were optimistically
predicted (compared with 42% across all subjects) and 13% of
maths, science and ICT/technology grades were
pessimistically predicted (compared with 14% across all
subjects).1.56
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Knowledge of relevant educational pathways
Another factor that can prevent young people pursuing
engineering careers is a lack of knowledge about relevant
STEM educational pathways.
In the 2019 EBM, just 39% of young people aged 14 to 16 said
they ‘know what they need to do next in order to become an
engineer’. This is a pivotal time in young people’s educational
journeys as they are taking their GCSEs and are soon to make
their post-16 choices, so this lack of knowledge about
engineering educational pathways is particularly worrying.
Among young people aged 16 to 19 who are approaching the
next crucial juncture, only 36% said they knew what to do next
to become an engineer.
There are clear gender differences in young people’s
knowledge of engineering educational pathways. Some 42% of
boys aged 11 to 19 said they knew what to do next to become
an engineer, compared with only 31% of girls. Figure 1.10
shows that the gender gap is smaller among older age groups,
but by the age of 16 to 19 it might be too late as this lack of
knowledge may already have contributed to the huge drop-off
of girls in STEM after GCSE.
Just 39% of 14 to 16 year olds say they
‘know what they need to do next in order
to become an engineer’.
Figure 1.10 Knowledge of engineering educational pathways
among 11 to 19 year olds by age group and gender (2019) – UK
39.1%
35.8%
32.0%
28.0%
Overall
Male
Female Overall
Age 11-14
Male
32.5%
Female Overall
Age 14-16
Male
Figure 1.11 Who 14 to 15 year olds spoke to about how GCSEs
are related to A levels or university courses (2014) – England
Who young people spoke to
Parents
Percentage
78.4%
Teachers
60.6%
Friends
43.9%
Brothers or sisters
23.4%
The school careers advisor
14.9%
Careers advisor who came into the school
10.5%
Someone else at the school
9.9%
Somebody from a university
7.6%
I didn't discuss this with anyone
7.1%
Employers who came into the school
5.0%
Other
2.1%
An advisor from the National Careers Service
1.7%
Source: DfE. ‘Our Future (LSYPE2), wave 2’ data, 2014.
39.4%
36.0%
It’s important that young people are advised on relevant next
steps, since this is part of providing them with the opportunity
to pursue STEM, should they wish to do so. Evidence from Next
Steps, a survey of young people aged 14 to 15 in England,
shows that pupils get information about how GCSEs are
related to later stages of education from a range of sources –
most notably, parents (78.4%) and teachers (60.6%), as shown
in Figure 1.11.
Female
Age 16-19
There has been little change in the levels of knowledge of
educational pathways among young people over recent
years,1.58 which suggests that more needs to be done to
increase awareness. Clearly conveying the importance of
studying subjects such as maths and science to young people
at key decision-making points is crucial for increasing
opportunities to enter engineering educational pathways.
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I know what to do next
in order to become an engineer.’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – agree a
little’ or ‘5 – agree a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing ‘disagree a lot’ and 5
representing ‘agree a lot’.
To view this chart by ethnicity, see Figure 1.10a in our Excel resource.
1.54 U
CU. ‘Predicted grades: accuracy and impact’, 2016.
1.55 Ibid.
1.56 Cambridge Assessment. ‘The accuracy of forecast grades for OCR GCSEs in June 2014’, 2015.
19
45.9%
43.0%
Of students aged 11 to 19 who reported that they probably or
definitely wanted to become an engineer, more than a third
didn’t know what to do next to become an engineer (35%). This
proportion was even higher amongst those who indicated they
would consider a career in engineering, at 42%.1.57
Case study – Ada is about solving industry
problems in the classroom
Mark Smith, CEO, Ada National College for Digital Skills
Ada, National College for Digital Skills is a sixth form and
higher education apprenticeship programme providing a
unique digital education to learners and a sustainable
pipeline of diverse digital talent into the tech sector.
The digital industry is experiencing epic growth but there
is a talent shortage. Over 130,000 tech jobs are available
each year in the UK, but students are leaving education
without sufficient knowledge and experience to access
these jobs. Ada wants to change this.
At Ada, students can learn relevant digital skills to pursue
their dream job in tech. We are a unique community that
puts computer programming at the heart of everything we
do. Our unique, industry-led education ensures that all our
learners leave Ada, not only with the qualifications they
need to succeed but the hands-on experience they can use
to make informed choices about their careers. Ada
collaborates with tech giants such as Google, Deloitte and
Salesforce, helping students with their presentation skills
and industry knowledge, and giving them a taste of how a
tech project is managed in the real world.
At Ada, we particularly want to remove the glass ceiling for
women and individuals from low-income backgrounds in
the tech industry. Everyone, regardless of their
background, is entitled to quality education and a better
future. Also, as digital technology is proven to be the most
socially mobile sector, it is crucial that otherwise
overlooked groups are afforded the opportunity to enter
this sector.
As the National College for Digital Skills, Ada’s focus on
diversifying talent and making the pipeline of talent
sustainable will ensure the country’s tech industry remains
current, accessible and successful.
Access to high-quality careers advice and guidance
Careers education is crucial for providing the essential
information young people need to make informed decisions
about what they want to do when they complete education.
The provision of careers education is particularly important
from the point of view of sectors that face severe skills
shortages. Appropriate advice and guidance is essential in
encouraging young people to aspire to acquire the relevant
skills to enter high-vacancy jobs and to boost the UK’s
economic prosperity. The government’s careers strategy 1.59
sets out a commitment to improve careers education
in England. The Careers & Enterprise Company (CEC) was
established in 2014 to provide schools in England with
additional support in meeting the Gatsby benchmarks, which
are a framework of 8 guidelines defining high standards of
careers provision in secondary schools (Figure 1.12).
1.57 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’, 2019.
1.58 Ibid.
1.59 DfE. ‘Careers strategy: making the most of everyone’s skills and talents’, 2017.
20
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Figure 1.12 The 8 ‘Gatsby benchmarks’
The benchmarks
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A stable careers
programme
Every school and college should have an
embedded programme of careers
education and guidance that is known
and understood by students, parents,
teachers, governors and employers.
Learning from
career and
labour market
information
Every student, and their parents, should
have access to good quality information
about future study options and labour
market opportunities. They will need the
support of an informed adviser to make
best use of available information.
Addressing the
needs of each
student
Students have different careers guidance
needs at different stages. Opportunities
for advice and support need to be
tailored to the needs of each student. A
school’s careers programme should
embed equality and diversity
considerations throughout.
Linking
curriculum
learning to
careers
All teachers should link curriculum
learning with careers. STEM subject
teachers should highlight the relevance
of STEM subjects for a wider range of
future career paths.
Encounters with
employers and
employees
Every student should have multiple
opportunities to learn from employers
about work, employment and the skills
that are valued in the workplace. This can
be through a range of enrichment
activities including visiting speakers,
mentoring and enterprise schemes.
Experiences of
workplaces
Every student should have first-hand
experience of the workplace through
work visits, work shadowing and/or work
experience to help their exploration of
career opportunities and expand their
networks.
Encounters with All students should understand the full
further and
range of learning opportunities that are
higher education available to them. This includes both
academic and vocational routes and
learning in schools, colleges, universities
and the workplace.
Personal
guidance
Every student should have opportunities
for guidance interviews with a careers
adviser, who could be internal (a member
of school staff) or external, provided they
are trained to an appropriate level. These
should be available whenever significant
study or career choices are being made.
They should be expected for all students
but should be timed to meet their
individual needs.
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
The fourth and fifth Gatsby benchmarks have particular
relevance for STEM. The careers strategy sets out as a key
action that by the end of 2020, every school should provide
each young person at least 7 encounters with employers
between the ages of 7 and 13, and that some of these
encounters should be with STEM employers. CEC’s ‘State of
the Nation’ report shows that significant progress has been
made on this front: 31% of schools and colleges in England
achieved the fifth Gatsby benchmark in 2017 to 2018 and just
one year later, 56% had achieved it. However, there is still some
way to go. In 2018 to 2019, 10% of schools and colleges were
still failing to achieve the fifth Gatsby benchmark and a further
38% were only partially achieving it.1.60, 1.61
The fourth Gatsby benchmark – linking curriculum learning
to careers – notes that STEM subject teachers should
“highlight the relevance of STEM for a wide range of future
career paths”.1.62 In 2018/19, only 38% of schools and colleges
had achieved this indicator, with a further 58% partially
achieving it.1.63
One issue for engineering is that young people consider
teachers and parents as key providers of careers advice, but
teachers and parents tend to regard themselves as limited in
their ability to provide this type of guidance–. Among young
people aged 11 to 19 surveyed in the 2019 EBM, 61% said they
would consider going to their parents for careers advice and
56% said they would consider going to teachers. However, less
than half of STEM secondary school teachers and under a third
of parents expressed confidence in giving careers advice on
engineering (45% and 32%, respectively).
Of the 11 to 19 year olds in the EBM, 59% said they would
consider going to careers advisers for careers advice in 2019,
but only 23.5% had so far heard about engineering careers
from this source. Most young people who had heard about
engineering careers from any source had heard about it from
their teachers (31.5%) or online (30.0%), as Figure 1.13 shows.
Figure 1.13 Main sources among 11 to 19 year olds who have
heard about engineering careers (2019) – UK
Main sources
Percentage
Teachers
31.5%
Online
26.0%
Careers adviser
23.5%
Careers fairs
22.0%
Family
21.9%
Someone who works as an engineer
20.6%
Social media
17.8%
Friends
17.3%
Source: EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’ data, 2019.
Q: ‘Have you heard about engineering careers from any of the following sources?’
Source: Gatsby Charitable Trust. ‘Good career guidance’, 2014.
1.60 C
EC. ‘State of the Nation 2019: Careers and enterprise provision in England’s secondary schools and colleges’, 2019.
1.61 T
he percentages do not total 100% because comparisons over time were drawn from only the sample of schools and colleges that provided 2 submissions (2017/18 and 2018/19)
(N=2,880), while the most recent figures that relate only to 2018/19 are calculated from a sample of schools and colleges that provided the most recent submission (N=3,351).
1.62 G
atsby Charitable Trust. ‘Good career guidance’, 2014.
1.63 C
EC. ‘State of the Nation 2019: Careers and enterprise provision in England’s secondary schools and colleges’, 2019.
21
Following evidence that careers education provision has often
been patchy and patterned in ways that are likely to exacerbate
social inequalities,1.64 efforts have been made to support
schools in disadvantaged areas to perform in alignment with
the Gatsby benchmarks. CEC’s ‘State of the Nation’ report
provides encouraging findings that schools and colleges
serving disadvantaged communities in England have made
significant progress in this respect, which is a key objective of
the careers strategy.1.65
Case study – Hinkley Point C: Providing an
educational pathway into engineering
Tom Thayer, HPC Inspire Education Lead, EDF
EDF’s Hinkley Point C (HPC) ‘Inspire’ education
programme is preparing young Somerset people for the
opportunities arriving with the construction and operation
of the UK’s first new nuclear power station in a generation.
The programme aims to inspire young people to study
both STEM and associated subjects, building a
sustainable legacy for the future through a pipeline from
education to skills and into future long-term employment.
Inspire delivers a wide range of curriculum-aligned and
Gatsby benchmark supporting free activities, engineering
workshops, assemblies and events whilst supporting
careers education for young people across the county.
The HPC team have visited almost 500 schools and
colleges in the area, leading to over 170,000 student
interactions since the programme began.
An evaluation of the Inspire programme has evidenced its
impact:
• M
ore than 40% of apprentices at HPC who participated
in the programme said Inspire had changed their career
path for the better.
• H
alf of the young people taking part in Inspire said they
wanted to try harder in Science, Technology, Engineering
and Maths (STEM) subjects.
• I nterest in some STEM careers increased by over 10% as
a direct result of Inspire.
• I nspire has provided opportunities for social mobility,
with 18% of HPC apprentices being eligible for free
school meals – more than double the national average
for level 3 apprentices (7%).
• M
ore than half of those given careers advice said they
found it easier to get work.
Tom Thayer leads the development of the Inspire
programme. He said: “Our programme is helping to
address a national skills shortage and is preparing young
people for the wealth of opportunities at Hinkley Point C
and beyond. I’m extremely proud of our commitment and
the long-term career opportunities we can provide in a
project that will play a big part in the UKs fight against
climate change”.
Key influencers
Key influencers, such as young people’s parents, teachers and
friends, can play a particularly important role in shaping
educational decisions.
Parents and STEM capital
Among young people in year 9 in England, 86.9% said they had
the most say in deciding their year 10 subject choices,1.66
implying that the majority of young people feel that they have
the autonomy to decide which educational pathways to pursue.
Among others who had a say in subject decisions, parents
were cited as having had the most influence (Figure 1.14). In a
slightly older sample of young people aged 16 to 17 who had
decided to stay on in full-time education after taking their
GCSEs, parents were also cited as having had the most
influence in this choice (Figure 1.15).
Figure 1.14 Key influencers in the GCSE subject choices of
13 to 14 year olds (2004) – England
Key influencer
Percentage
Parents
59.9%
School
35.5%
Someone else
4.5%
Source: CLS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 1’ data, 2004.
Young people, who are reported to be the main decision makers, have been excluded from
these calculations.
Figure 1.15 Key influencers in the decision of 16 to 17 year olds
to stay on in full-time education after GCSE (2008) – England
Key influencer
Percentage
Parents
45.7%
Friends
17.6%
Older brother or sister
14.4%
Other family member
7.2%
Source: CLS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 4’ data, 2008.
Young people, who are reported to be the main decision makers, have been excluded from
these calculations. The sample is restricted to those who stayed on in full-time education
after GCSE.
The overwhelming influence of some parents in shaping career
choices is shown by the tendency in some professions for
children to follow the occupational footsteps of their parents:
children of doctors are 24 times more likely than their peers to
become doctors, for example.1.67 Recent analysis of microclass mobility by academics at the London School of
Economics documents these trends for a number of ‘elite’
occupations1.68, including engineering. The rates of
consecutive generations of engineers in the UK are relatively
high, being second only to medical practitioners: 1.69
1.64 Moote, J. and Archer, L. ‘Failing to deliver? Exploring the current status of career education provision in England’, Res. Pap. Educ. 33, 2018.
1.65 CEC. ‘State of the Nation 2019: Careers and enterprise provision in England’s secondary schools and colleges’, 2019.
1.66 C
LS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 1’ data, 2004.
1.67 F
riedman, S. and Laurison, D. ‘The Class Ceiling: Why it Pays to be Privileged’, Policy Press, 2019.
1.68 ‘Elite occupations’ are defined as those that are among higher and lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations according to the National Statistics
Socioeconomic Classification.
1.69 L aurison, D. and Friedman, S. ‘The Class Pay Gap in Higher Professional and Managerial Occupations’, Am. Sociol. Rev., 2016.
22
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Figure 1.16 Consecutive generations within ‘elite occupations’
(2014) – UK
Occupation
Medical practitioners
Same occupation as
main wage-earning
parent (%)
17.2%
Engineers (such as civil engineers,
mechanical engineers)
8.6%
Protective civil service (such as senior police
officers, officers in armed forces)
8.2%
Law (such as barristers and judges, legal
professionals)
8.1%
Managers and directors in business (such as
advertising and PR directors, chief executives
and senior officials)
7.3%
Other professionals (such as clergy,
environment professionals)
6.2%
Finance (such as brokers, financial managers
and directors)
4.6%
Accountants (such as taxation experts,
actuaries, economists and statisticians)
4.6%
Higher education teaching professionals
3.9%
Other life science professionals (such as
dental practitioners, veterinarians,
pharmacists)
3.0%
Scientists (such as physical scientists, social
and humanities scientists)
2.2%
Business professionals (such as business
and related research professionals,
management consultants and business
analysts)
2.2%
Public sector managers and professionals
(such as education advisers and school
inspectors, social services managers and
directors)
1.1%
These results reinforce literature that suggests familiarity
with a given field or occupation can promote interest in it or
raise aspirations to pursue it. Louise Archer’s work on ‘science
capital’ summarises this trend in the STEM context: sciencerelated knowledge, attitudes, experiences and resources
that young people are exposed to – most often through their
parents and via the process of primary socialisation – can
raise young people’s science-related aspirations.1.70 The more
of these factors they are exposed to (in a positive sense),
the higher their science capital. Parents who are themselves
engaged in STEM make the choice of STEM familiar for their
children, supporting young people during formative times
and guiding them, consciously or otherwise, so that their
self-identity is not at odds with their perceptions of a
STEM identity.1.71
Science capital
Science capital is a concept developed by the ASPIRES
(now ASPIRES2) team, led by Professor Louise Archer, to
explain why there are disparate rates of participation in
post-16 science.1.72 Their studies show that the more
science capital a young person has, the more likely they
are to aspire to pursue science education and careers.
There are 8 key dimensions of science capital:
• scientific literacy
• science-related attitudes, values and dispositions
• knowledge about the transferability of science
• science media consumption
Despite parents tending to hold positive
views of engineering, evidence shows
that their knowledge of the profession is
limited.
While science capital can be an influential factor in decision
making, most young people are not exposed to it in all its
forms. Perceptions of STEM tend to be relatively positive
among parents in the UK, with 69.3% reporting a positive view
of engineering and 83% saying that they would recommend a
career in engineering for their children (Figure 1.17). However,
evidence from the 2019 EBM shows a worryingly low level of
knowledge of engineering among parents, who are key
influencers. As Figure 1.17 shows, only 27.5% of parents know
what people working in engineering do. Shockingly, over half
(51.3%) say that they know little or almost nothing about what
people working in engineering do.
42.7% of parents in higher social grade
positions say they know what people
working in engineering do compared
with just 23.0% of parents in lower social
grade positions.
• participation in out-of-school science learning contexts
• family science skills, knowledge and qualifications
• knowing people in science-related roles
• talking about science in everyday life
Source: Data adapted from Laurison, D. and Friedman, S. ‘The Class Pay Gap in Higher
Professional and Managerial Occupations’. Am. Sociol. Rev., 2016.
The EngineeringUK footprint is not used here to define those in engineering occupations.
Figures relate only to those in ‘elite occupations’ – considered as those in SOC major groups
beginning 1 or 2. The data used for this study was from the 2014 Labour Force Survey.
Figure 1.17 Knowledge, perceptions and desirability of
engineering careers among parents (2019) – UK
83.2%
68.1%
69.3%
See
engineering
as desirable
Perceive
engineering
positively
27.5%
Know a lot
about what
engineers do
Would
recommend
engineering
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘How much do you know about what people working in engineering do?’ Percentages
represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite a lot’ or ‘5 – a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale,
with 1 representing ‘know almost nothing’ and 5 representing ‘know a lot’.
Q: ‘How desirable do you believe a career in engineering to be for your children?’
Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite desirable’ or ‘5 – very desirable’.
Q: ‘How positive or negative is your view of engineering?’ Percentages represent the
proportions reporting ‘4 – quite positive’ or ‘5 – very positive’.
Q: ‘Would you recommend that your children consider a career in engineering?’
Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘1 – yes’.
Social background makes a difference here. Further evidence
from the 2019 EBM shows that although 42.7% of parents in
higher social grade positions say they know what people
working in engineering do, just 23.0% of parents in lower social
grade positions agree, putting children from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds at a disadvantage in terms of
STEM capital.1.73 Similar patterns are found when looking at
parents’ perceptions of engineering, their confidence in giving
advice on careers in engineering and their likelihood of
recommending careers in engineering to their children.
Figure 1.18 Knowledge, perceptions and desirability of engineering careers, and confidence in giving engineering careers advice
among parents by social grade (2019) – UK
Knowledge of
engineering
careers (%)
Positive
perceptions of
engineering (%)
Confidence in
giving engineering
careers advice (%)
Higher and intermediate managerial
42.7%
79.5%
46.2%
93.3%
89.7%
Intermediate
23.0%
67.5%
27.7%
83.0%
83.0%
Semi-skilled and unskilled manual
23.0%
63.8%
26.7%
79.9%
77.7%
Overall
27.5%
69.3%
31.7%
84.6%
83.2%
Social grade
Engineering will
have a positive
impact (%)
Would
recommend
engineering (%)
Source: EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’ data, 2019.
Q: ‘How much do you know about what people working in engineering do?’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite a lot’ or ‘5 – a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1
representing ‘know almost nothing’ and 5 representing ‘know a lot’;
Q: ‘How positive or negative is your view of engineering?’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite positive’ or ‘5 – very positive’;
Q: ‘Would you recommend that your children consider a career in engineering?’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘1 – yes’;
Q: ‘How confident do you feel giving careers advice in the following areas?’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 - fairly confident’ or ‘5 - very confident’ on a 5-point Likert scale,
with 1 representing ‘not at all confident’ and 5 representing ‘very confident’;
Q: ‘How much do you agree or disagree that engineers will have a positive impact on our future?’ Percentages represent proportions reporting ‘4 – agree a little’ or ‘5 – agree a lot’.
1.70 A
rcher, L. et al. ‘Science Aspirations, Capital, and Family Habitus: How Families Shape Children’s Engagement and Identification With Science’, Am. Educ. Res. J., 2012.
1.71 A
rcher, L. et al. ‘‘Science capital’: A conceptual, methodological, and empirical argument for extending bourdieusian notions of capital beyond the arts’, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 2015.
1.72 Ibid.
23
1.73 In this instance, a ‘higher social grade’ refers to those in ‘Higher and intermediate managerial, administrative and professional occupations’ (social grades A and B), and ‘lower
social grade’ refers to those in ‘Semi-skilled and unskilled manual occupations, unemployed and lowest grade occupations’ (social grades D and E).
24
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
There are also differences between parents from higher and
lower socioeconomic backgrounds in terms of the educational
routes they encourage their children to follow. Parents in lower
social grades are more likely to recommend that their child
follow a vocational rather than an academic route into
engineering (48.3% compared with 22.9% respectively).
Parents in higher social grades are far more likely to
recommend an academic route over a vocational route
(65.8% compared with 20.2% respectively).
Figure 1.19 Likelihood of recommending a vocational or
academic path into engineering among parents by social grade
(2019) – UK
65.8%
53.0%
20.2%
21.5%
However, evidence from the 2019 EBM suggest that, like
parents, STEM secondary school teachers in the UK have
surprisingly low levels of knowledge of engineering careers
(Figure 1.20).
Figure 1.20 Knowledge of engineering careers and
confidence in giving careers advice in engineering among
teachers (2019) – UK
48.3%
25.5%
Teachers
Teachers are key influencers because of their responsibility to
effectively deliver the curriculum. They’re also responsible for
ensuring their students are well informed when it comes to
their next educational stage and/or well-equipped when it
comes to their transition into the labour market. Teachers are
arguably very well placed to gauge young people’s academic
abilities and interests, and should be in a good position to
provide young people with tailored advice and guidance on
educational pathways and careers.
22.9%
28.8%
64.8%
14.0%
54.6%
STEM teachers may have low levels of knowledge of
engineering because many teachers deliver lessons on
subjects in which they are not a specialist. This is a key
challenge for the teaching profession generally and a problem
which is particularly acute in STEM (see Chapter 2 for further
information). Nevertheless, post-secondary qualifications in
engineering or related subjects tend to have prerequisites, and
it is up to teachers and schools to ensure all pupils are made
aware of these considerations.
It is important that pupils have the opportunity to speak to their
teachers about their future career plans, should they wish. A
nationally representative sample of young people aged 15 to 16
in England were asked about how often they talk to their
teachers about their plans for future study (Figure 1.21). Less
than one third (30.7%) said that they do this a quite a lot or a lot,
whereas 61.1% said they don’t speak to their teachers about
future study very often, or they only do so a little. A further 8.2%
said they don’t do this at all.
Figure 1.21 How often 15 to 16 year olds talk to teachers
about plans for future study (2015) – England
45.4%
Higher and
intermediate managerial
Vocational
Academic
Intermediate
Semi-skilled and
unskilled manual
4.2%
35.2%
8.2%
No preference
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘If your children were going to pursue a career in engineering, would you be most likely to
recommend a vocational or academic route?’
Parents also play an important role in preparing their children
for the world of work through their social and professional
networks. Work experience can provide influential workplace
encounters for young people, and good quality placements can
positively shape career choices. Since the removal of statutory
work experience (and associated funding), placements are
now more commonly organised by families than by schools.
Young people whose parents are rich in STEM capital and have
extensive social networks they can call on for favours are at a
significant advantage in this respect.1.74
24.7%
Know a lot
Do not
know a lot
Knowledge
about engineering
Feel confident
Do not
feel confident
26.5%
Young
people
Confidence in giving
engineering careers advice
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
Q: ‘How much do you know about what people working in engineering do?’ Percentages
represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite a lot’ or ‘5 – a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with
1 representing ‘know almost nothing’ and 5 representing ‘know a lot’.
Q: ‘How confident do you feel giving careers advice in the following areas?’ Percentages
represent the proportions reporting ‘4 - fairly confident’ or ‘5 - very confident’ on a 5-point
Likert scale, with 1 representing ‘not at all confident’ and 5 representing ‘very confident’.
STEM teachers may have low levels of
knowledge of engineering because
many deliver lessons on subjects in
which they are not a specialist.
age 15-16
36.4%
Not at all
Not very often
A little
Quite a lot
Source: DfE. 'Our Future (LSYPE2), wave 3' data, 2015.
A lot
Case study – STEM Learning, teachers and
engineering careers
Amanda Dickins, Head of Impact and Development,
STEM Learning
Investing in teachers makes sense: each teacher will teach
thousands of young people during the course of their
teaching career. Supporting one teacher to better
understand engineering and use that knowledge to
enhance and enrich their teaching will inspire students
year after year. Teachers are particularly important for
young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, who
often lack the networks and connections that others enjoy.
STEM Learning supports teachers to become inspirational
professionals, with the knowledge and confidence to
enthuse young people about engineering and careers. UK
teachers are young – 26% are under 30 years old – and too
few understand engineering. STEM Learning helps them
to develop their knowledge of engineering and careers,
and the opportunities that engineering opens up for their
students.
For example, the Lloyd’s Register Foundation is supporting
20 ENTHUSE Partnerships, enabling STEM Learning to
work with teachers from 88 schools. The Partnerships are
developing engineering education – using the framework
provided by the Royal Academy of Engineering’s
Engineering Habits of Mind – and engagement with
engineering employers. There is a strong focus on
inspiring and supporting young people facing
disadvantage, as well as groups and communities that are
underrepresented in engineering. Over 40,000 young
people will benefit from greater awareness of engineering,
the role of engineering in securing a safe and sustainable
future, and the routes they can choose to take them into
engineering careers.
Schools
Provision of advice, guidance and opportunity is not only up to
the individual teachers, who are often constrained for time.
Teachers across the country are faced with mounting
workloads and time pressures resulting from understaffing
and cuts to school funding. As a result, they may not have the
time they’d like to spend with individual pupils discussing
future plans.
Schools as institutions can provide both opportunities and
constraints by broadening or restricting subject options
available to students, or by guiding students towards certain
paths.1.75 For example, not all schools offer their students the
opportunity to take triple science. This is known to correlate
with both social background and an individual’s likelihood of
studying physics at A level,1.76 thus having obvious implications
for the engineering talent pool.
1.74 E
ngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
25
1.75 Anders, J. et al. ‘The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2018.
1.76 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
26
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
A recent study has shown that the school a young person
attends can have a greater influence on ethnicity.1.77 The
socioeconomic composition of a school (that is, the proportion
of all its students who are eligible for free school meals) has a
notable effect on young people’s academic choices. The
results of the study raise questions about whether schools in
disadvantaged areas are tailoring their curriculum content
according to the composition of their students. And in addition,
questions around whether funding decisions made by local
education authorities are effectively imposing constraints on
the subject choices that schools are able to offer to their
students.1.78
Peer effects
Sociological research suggests that people tend to form close
ties with others who are – or who are perceived to be – socially
‘similar’ to themselves. One consequence of this is that beliefs,
attitudes and norms tend to be affirmed rather than
challenged. This phenomenon is widely documented in
research on friendship networks, along with consideration of
the implications for a range of social outcomes, including
subject choices.1.79
Girls’ interest in STEM is reinforced
when other girls in their classroom also
have an affinity for these subjects.
The extensive influence that young people’s peer groups can
have on their educational outcomes is well recognised.
Academic attainment is driven up for pupils who are taught in
environments with a large proportion of high-achieving peers
and vice versa,1.80 decisions relating to academic versus
vocational pathways are influenced by the preferences of
friends,1.81 and decisions to continue in post-compulsory
education are shaped in part by group behaviours.1.82
A recent study in Sweden looked at how peer effects can
widen the gender gap in STEM. The study found that the role of
peers in shaping young people’s decisions is especially
important during adolescent years. Peer socialisation can have
long-lasting effects on attitudes, norms and values, and this
can be influential when making career choices. They point out
that since the majority of friendships are same sex (87% to
90%), young people are mostly influenced by their same-sex
peers. Girls’ interest in STEM is reinforced when other girls in
their classroom also have an affinity for STEM. Conversely, this
suggests that any pre-existing negative perceptions of STEM
among girls can also amplify the gender gap.1.83
Interestingly, young people themselves don’t tend to report
their friends as being particularly influential in their decisionmaking processes, suggesting that this peer effect may be
unconsciously felt. In a nationally representative survey of
young people in year 9 in England, for example, they reported
their friends as being low on a list of influencing factors for
their year 10 subject choices:
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Figure 1.22 Influences on the year 10 subject choices of 13 and
14 year olds (2004) – England
Influences
I chose these subjects because I only
wanted to do subjects I’m interested in
Young people agreeing or
strongly agreeing with the
statement (%)
91.3%
I chose these subjects because I will
need passes in them for the job/career
I want after leaving school
85.0%
I chose these subjects because I will
need passes in them for the courses I
want to do after year 11
82.1%
I only want to do subjects that I know I
will do well at in exams
80.0%
I chose these subjects because I like
the teachers who teach these subjects
in year 10
25.1%
I chose these subjects because I
wanted to do the same subjects as my
friends
10.9%
Source: CLS. ‘Next Steps (LSYPE1), wave 1’ data, 2004.
1.4 – Government strategies to plug the skills gap
It is widely recognised that more must be done to engage and
inspire young people to pursue STEM education in order to
address the continuing skills gap in engineering. Government,
employers, the education sector and the wider engineering
community have devoted significant efforts and resources to
address the issue in recent years.1.84
Industrial strategy
The government’s industrial strategy, implemented at the end of
2017, signalled its commitment to boost productivity and build
the UK’s economy, in part by ensuring that young people are well
equipped to do the high-skilled jobs needed in the face of rapid
technological change and the emergence of industry 4.0. The
strategy commented specifically on the need to tackle the
shortage of STEM skills. It also aimed to make progress by
creating the conditions for new businesses to thrive and offer up
opportunities for the next generation.1.85
A House of Commons report in 2018, ‘Delivering STEM Skills for
the Economy’,1.86 documented the myriad of efforts that have
been made over recent years to harness STEM skills among
young people in the UK. In one example, the Department for
Education (DfE), which is responsible for schools, colleges,
apprenticeships and higher education (HE) institutions in
England, now has a dedicated STEM team – the STEM and
Digital Skills Unit. In addition, it has set up Skills Advisory Panels
(SAP) that work with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to
better gauge local and regional skills needs. And it has recently
undertaken an employer skills survey dedicated to improving
understanding of future skills demand. All of these will inform
future decisions to shape policy and strategies to improve and
1.77 A
nders, J. et al. ‘The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2018.
1.78 Ibid.
1.79 Raabe, I. J. et al. ‘The Social Pipeline: How Friend Influence and Peer Exposure Widen the STEM Gender Gap’, Sociol. Educ., 2019.
1.80 Anders, J. et al. ‘The role of schools in explaining individuals’ subject choices at age 14’, Oxford Rev. Educ., 2018.
1.81 CVER. ‘Peer Effects and Social Influence in Post-16 Educational Choice’, 2017.
1.82 DfE. ‘Subject and course choices at ages 14 and 16 amongst young people in England’, 2011.
1.83 Raabe, I. J. et al. ‘The Social Pipeline: How Friend Influence and Peer Exposure Widen the STEM Gender Gap’, Sociol. Educ., 2019.
1.84 IET. ‘Studying Stem: what are the barriers?’, 2008.
1.85 BEIS. ‘Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future’, 2017.
1.86 H
ouse of Commons, Committee of Public Accounts. ‘Delivering STEM skills for the economy Forty-Seventh Report of Session 2017-19 Report, together with formal minutes
relating to the report’, 2018.
27
expand STEM education. Separately, the Department for
Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) is tasked with
developing insights into business needs and encouraging young
people to consider STEM via engagement programmes.
Across government departments, in the 10 years leading to
2017, almost £1 billion was spent on initiatives to increase
participation in STEM educational pathways.
Chapter 3 contains more information on the efforts that have
been made by government to advance the aims of the industrial
strategy since 2017, with a particular focus on increased funding
and support for STEM pathways within the further education
sector.
Careers strategy
The government’s careers strategy1.87 for England came into
effect in 2017, in recognition of the long-standing issue of
inadequate careers provision across the country, with a
particular focus on increasing young people’s engagement with
STEM education. The aim is that the careers strategy should
complement the UK’s industrial strategy by promoting highquality technical education and improving knowledge of where
different qualifications can lead.
The careers strategy recognised that careers advice had, for
some time, been unevenly distributed across the country,
hindering opportunities for some groups to receive guidance. As
a result, it also seeks to make Britain a fairer place and promote
social mobility by ensuring that everyone, regardless of
background, has the opportunity to build a rewarding career.
Under the careers strategy, the Careers & Enterprise Company
(CEC) was given greater responsibility to provide additional
support for schools and colleges in England to improve their
careers provision, including assistance and guidance to meet
their Gatsby benchmarks (see Figure 1.12), some of which focus
on STEM. Although there is much work to be done in this area,
CEC’s 2019 ‘State of the Nation’ report1.88 shows that careers
guidance has improved across the country, with secondary
schools and colleges demonstrably progressing in every
dimension of careers support, including increasing young
people’s frequency of interactions with employers.
The Gatsby benchmarks have been instrumental in holding
schools to account, providing guidance on how to improve
careers education. In 2019, schools and colleges in England
achieved a mean score of 3.2 out of 8 Gatsby benchmarks,
representing an increase of over 50% since 2017.1.89
Devolved nations
In early 2019, Scotland implemented its 5-year STEM education
and training strategy, which intends to narrow the skills gap and
focus in particular on ensuring equality of access and
opportunity to study STEM in order to address the
underrepresentation of particular groups.1.90 Scotland’s STEM
strategy, its Developing the Youth Workforce Programme and its
Learner Journey Review provide mutual support to ensure the
next generation of young people are equipped to meet the skills
needs of employers across the country.
Over the past decade, Northern Ireland has taken important
steps to address skills shortages. ‘Success Through STEM’,1.91
Northern Ireland’s STEM strategy published in 2011, sets out a
vision of how to increase and enhance skills up to 2020. ‘Further
Education Means Success: The Northern Ireland Strategy for
Further Education’ was launched in 2016 to help implement
Northern Ireland’s STEM strategy and the innovation strategy.1.92
Wales’ ‘Skills implementation plan – Delivering the policy
statement on skills’1.93 aimed to boost competitiveness and help
Wales move towards becoming a highly skilled society that can
tackle poverty and be sustainable in the face of ever scarcer
resources. Its delivery plan, ‘Science, Technology, Engineering
and Mathematics (STEM) in education and training’, puts STEM
at the heart of this ambition.1.94
Case study – The Young STEM Leader
Programme, Scotland
Jamie Menzies, Young STEM Leader Project Officer,
SSERC
The Young STEM Leader Programme (YSLP) is derived
from the Scottish Government’s 2017 strategy for STEM
Education and Training to address participation barriers and
improve STEM engagement.
Aiming to spark greater interest and participation in STEM,
YSLP enables children and young people to lead, inspire and
mentor their peers through the creation of STEM activities,
events or interactions in any context within schools and
communities. From developing explosive demonstrations
to one-on-one mentoring and everything between, every
Young STEM Leader will develop their own skills through the
creation of engaging experiences.
For younger pupils, YSLP offers a chance to explore their
creativity and get hands on with STEM. For teens, it
represents an excellent way to develop personal skills that
will enable them stand out from the crowd with employers
or in further or higher education. Morgan, a Young STEM
Leader from Dalmarnock Primary in Glasgow, said that
YSLP has been “one of the most fun experiences” of her life,
improving her confidence and skills in STEM.
There are 2 versions of YSLP, each with 3 levels. In the ‘nonformal’ version (YSL 2, 3 and 4), young people complete 4
digital badges – Discover, Create, Inspire and Lead – to gain
their award. These are mapped to Curriculum for Excellence
levels 2, 3 and 4. In the ‘formal’ version (YSL 4, 5 and 6),
young people gain a formal Scottish Credit and
Qualifications Framework (SCQF) level 4, 5 or 6 award,
credit rated by the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA).
Within their delivering centre, young people are supported
and assessed by trained tutor assessors.
Supported by the project team at Scottish Schools
Education Research Centre (SSERC), the YSLP is being
delivered in over 70 pilot schools and community groups
across Scotland. As the programme progresses towards a
full national launch in summer 2020, it is hoped that 400
centres will be involved by the end of the year. The eventual
aim is that every young person in Scotland will have access
to the programme in 2021.
1.87 D
fE. ‘Careers strategy: making the most of everyone’s skills and talents’, 2017.
1.88 CEC. ‘State of the Nation 2019: Careers and enterprise provision in England’s secondary schools and colleges’, 2019.
1.89 T
hese figures pertain to schools and colleges that took part in CEC’s Compass self-assessment tool on more than one occasion over the period in question – that is, those who
can contribute to analyses of change over time (N=2,880).
1.90 S
cottish Government. ‘STEM Education and Training Strategy for Scotland - First Annual Report’, 2019.
1.91 D
EL and DfE. ‘Success through STEM: STEM Strategy’, 2011.
1.92 D
ELNI. ‘Further Education Means Success: The Northern Ireland Strategy for Further Education’, 2016.
1.93 W
elsh Government. ‘Skills implementation plan’, 2014.
1.94 W
elsh Government. ‘Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) in education and training’, 2016.
28
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Educational reform
Further commitments by UK governments have included the
introduction of new qualifications that it is hoped will meet the
growing demand for skills, in particular at level 3 and above.
T levels – new technical qualifications equivalent to A levels –
are being introduced in England in September 2020. These will
offer another route for post-16 study of subjects such as
engineering and manufacturing. There will also be an increased
focus on higher level technical qualifications and degree
apprenticeships, which aim to bring together higher and
vocational education to meet skills needs. These have been
offered in engineering since 2015 (see Chapter 3). Increased
spending to address issues of teacher recruitment and retention
has also been introduced by government, including bursaries
and schemes to recruit teachers from other occupations. This
may address shortages in specialist science and maths
teachers in particular (see Chapter 2).
Government campaigns
The ‘Year of Engineering’ was a cross-government campaign led
by the Department for Transport that took place throughout
2018. It involved hundreds of industry partners and employers
working to raise the profile of engineering and boost
engagement in STEM outreach programmes. The campaign
was an important step forward, signalling an unprecedented
coordination of efforts by government, professional bodies,
industry and the wider community to celebrate and promote the
profession. Activities included large-scale outreach
programmes, such as a £1 million investment from Shell in the
‘Tomorrow’s Engineers Energy Quest’ programme, which gave
an additional 80,000 children the opportunity to experience
hands-on engineering activities. Organisations such as Thales,
Crossrail, Siemens were also involved.
The campaign is considered to have been a huge success,
reaching over 1 million children. Six months into the campaign,
the number of 7 to 11 year olds who said that they would
consider a career in engineering had increased by 36%.1.95 Its
legacy has continued with the ‘Engineering: Take a Closer Look’
campaign, which aims to continue the drive to boost
participation in STEM outreach and engagement.
1.5 – Wider sector initiatives to increase STEM
participation
There are numerous efforts being rolled out across the
engineering community to drive up participation in STEM, and to
engage and inspire young people.
STEM engagement and outreach
The STEM engagement landscape is growing exponentially. In
2016, a mapping exercise by the Royal Academy of Engineering
identified over 600 providers who were actively involved in
supporting engineering education in the UK1.96 – a number which
is likely to have grown substantially since. These opportunities
range widely in scope, duration and target audience, from the
‘Big Bang UK Fair’, which saw 60,000 young people visit in 2019,
to small-scale one-off interactions such as 1:1 mentoring
opportunities. Figure 1.23 shows the extent of out-of-school
science-related engagement among young people aged 7 to 11
in 2019.
It’s difficult to unequivocally determine how much difference
these engagement programmes make in inspiring young
people to consider engineering careers and on raising
attainment and participation in STEM education. While some
studies have been sceptical about the success of STEM
enrichment experiences,1.97 others have made the point that
their influence will vary according to the characteristics of
each activity.1.98 No single intervention is likely to be successful
in addressing the skills shortage. Instead, activities need to be
sustained and holistic, and between them help with each of the
elements of behavioral change – together they should drive up
motivation, enhance opportunities and improve capabilities.
Evidence from the 2019 EBM shows that among young people
aged 11 to 19, those who attended a STEM careers activity in
the 12 months prior to being surveyed (27.4%) had significantly
more positive views of engineering and science. They more
often viewed careers in engineering and science as desirable,
and had greater knowledge of what to do next to pursue
careers in engineering and science (see Figure 1.24). Further,
when comparing those who had and had not attended a STEM
careers activity in the 12 months prior to being surveyed, there
were statistically significant differences between the
proportions reporting that they wanted to become an engineer
(18% compared with 7%) and a scientist (11% compared with
5%) when they finish full-time education.
Figure 1.24 Knowledge of engineering careers and
educational pathways, perceptions of engineering and desirability
of engineering as a career among young people by STEM
engagement (2019) – UK
66.3%
55.6%
Figure 1.23 Participation in science-related activities outside school among 7 to 14 year olds by gender and age group (2019) – UK
Visit science
exhibitions/
museums
Age 7–11
Age 11–14
Attend
a science,
technology,
engineering
Watch
or maths
science
club programmes
Read
science
books
Read about
science on
the internet
Go to a
science and
engineering
fair
%
%
%
%
%
Total No.
33.8%
18.5%
38.0%
30.4%
31.6%
17.2%
19.3%
310
Female
37.1%
16.3%
35.0%
31.3%
26.8%
15.1%
24.6%
303
Overall
35.4%
17.4%
36.5%
30.8%
29.2%
16.2%
21.9%
613
Male
32.9%
20.7%
40.7%
32.8%
34.7%
17.3%
19.5%
353
Female
30.9%
12.5%
30.2%
25.7%
28.8%
13.8%
29.8%
351
Overall
31.9%
16.7%
35.7%
29.4%
31.9%
15.6%
24.5%
704
1.95 IMechE. ‘Feature: Did the 2018 Year of Engineering Succeed?’ [online], accessed 30/03/2020.
1.96 RaEng. ‘The UK STEM Education Landscape’, 2016.
35.7%
16.5%
%
Source: EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor’ data, 2019.
Q: Do you do any of the following science related activities outside of school?
29
None of the
6 options
given
Knowledge
of engineering
careers
STEM activity
Knowledge
of educational
pathways
Positive
perceptions of
engineering
Initiatives to promote greater coordination and impact
Increased opportunities for young people to experience STEM
engagement actvities are promising, but this also brings about
a need for greater coordination across the sector. Not only
should activities be demonstrably impactful for participants, in
particular if they come at a cost, but they should also be
complementary such that they build upon each other. They
should also be easily identifiable and accessible by teachers,
parents and young people.
These needs have driven initiatives such as the Inspiring
Engineers Code of Practice, led by the Department for
Education in partnership with Shell, and Neon, a digital
platform that allows teachers to easily access engineering
experiences.
Neon is being developed by EngineeringUK and supported by
the engineering community. Teachers using the platform will
be required to sign up to 4 pledges:
• E
nsure programmes contribute to a sustained and rich
STEM journey for all young people.
• E
nsure all young people have opportunities to engage in
engineering-inspiration activities, so that nobody is left
behind.
• P
romote a positive, compelling and authentic view of
engineering, which showcases the breadth of opportunities.
43.7%
29.6%
%
Male
54.7%
44.2%
This is Engineering is an initiative that
showcases real-world case studies and
experiences of engineering to young
people.
Desirability
of engineering
career
No STEM activity
Source: EngineeringUK. 'Engineering Brand Monitor' data, 2019.
STEM activity includes young people who have attended a STEM engagement activity in the
last 12 months.
Q: ‘How much do you know about what people working in engineering do?’ Percentages
represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – quite a lot’ or ‘5 – a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with
1 representing ‘know almost nothing’ and 5 representing ‘know a lot’
Q: ‘How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement: I know what to do next
in order to become an engineer.’ Percentages represent the proportions reporting ‘4 – agree a
little’ or ‘5 – agree a lot’ on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 representing ‘disagree a lot’ and 5
representing ‘agree a lot’.
Q: ‘How positive or negative is your view on engineering?’ Percentages represent the
proportions reporting ‘4 - quite positive’ or ‘5 - very positive’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1
representing ‘very negative’ and 5 representing ‘very positive’.
Q: ‘How desirable do you believe a career in engineering to be?’ Percentages represent the
proportions reporting ‘4 – quite desirable’ or ‘5 – very desirable’ on a 5-point Likert scale, with
1 representing ‘not at all desirable’ and 5 representing ‘very desirable’.
• I mprove monitoring and evaluation to develop a shared
understanding of what works.
Neon, being developed by EngineeringUK and supported by the
engineering community, will support providers of engineering
experiences in achieving their pledges by giving them the
opportunity to feature their activities on a searchable platform
for teachers. To feature on the platform, providers are required
to meet a set of quality standards, which include a
commitment to evaluation and learning to drive up quality, and
alignment with at least 2 of the Gatsby benchmarks.
‘This is Engineering’, led by the Royal Academy of Engineering
in collaboration with EngineeringUK, is an initiative that
showcases real-world case studies and experiences of
engineering to young people. It highlights the importance and
breath of engineering careers and demonstrates that
engineering has something to offer everyone. Founding
principal partners include BAE Systems and National Grid, and
major partners include Facebook.
1.97 B
anerjee, P. A. ‘Is informal education the answer to increasing and widening participation in STEM education?’, Rev. Educ., 2017.
1.98 Vennix, J. et al. ‘Do outreach activities in secondary STEM education motivate students and improve their attitudes towards STEM?’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2018.
30
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Employer engagement
Employers are key in providing young people with the
opportunity to experience the real world of work, giving them
invaluable insights into what a career in engineering might look
like. The positive effect that employer interactions can have on
young people’s education and employment prospects is well
known. For example, employer engagement is associated with
a reduced likelihood of becoming NEET (not in education,
employment or training) and also with increased earnings.1.99
EngineeringUK’s evaluation surveys reinforce the view that
interactions with employers and exposure to real-world
experiences are important. Meeting an engineer at a STEM
engagement activity was positively associated with
perceptions of engineering, knowledge about engineering
careers and knowledge of the educational pathways to pursue
engineering careers.
Employer engagement is key to inspiring
young people. It is associated with both
reduced likelihood of becoming NEET
and with increased earnings.
Many employers run their own STEM engagement
programmes or provide funding to support others.
EngineeringUK’s Skills Partnership supports a network of
employers across the UK in their efforts to drive up employerled engagement and the effect of the experiences they offer
young people.1.100 Led by the Careers & Enterprise Company to
drive forward the careers strategy, engineering employers now
also provide enterprise advisers to support schools and
colleges by providing funding and offering the time of industry
professionals.1.101
Other important employer initiatives include freeing up the
time of employees to volunteer as STEM Ambassadors. These
are professionals working in STEM careers who offer free-ofcharge school visits and face-to-face interactions with young
people to engage and inspire them in STEM.
STEM employers also play an important role in providing
relevant work experience opportunities and apprenticeships.
Organisations such as the STEM Exchange1.102 exist to help
connect teachers and young people with employers who are
offering work experience opportunities. Others, such as
Education and Employers,1.103 work to promote employer
engagement in the UK more generally.
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
Case study – Drax commitment to improving
social mobility
Vicky Bullivant, Group Head of Sustainable Business, Drax
At Drax Group, our social strategy focuses on improving
opportunity and social mobility by promoting Science
Technology Engineering and Maths (STEM) skills and
employability through partnerships with schools and
colleges, free educational tours and work experience
opportunities. In 2019, we signed the UK cross-party Social
Mobility Pledge, demonstrating our commitment to widen
access to the energy industry and cultivate talent among
young people from all social backgrounds.
Drax invested £35,000 in Greenpower electric car kits for
our 7 partner schools in the Selby area. To encourage
students to study STEM subjects, Drax colleagues
volunteered more than 160 hours supporting learners in
designing, building and racing these electric-powered
vehicles. We also sponsored the UK’s first ever schools’
electric car race in Hull.
1.6 – Summary
STEM education has a crucial role to play in equipping young
people with the relevant skills they need to fill the demand for
occupations with vast shortages, such as engineering. The UK
education system is relatively complex, offering a range of
different qualifications and subjects at the various stages of
young people’s educational journeys.
The following chapters in this report provide detailed
information on attainment and participation in STEM at key
points along engineering educational pathways, from
secondary through higher education, and with a focus on both
academic and vocational routes.
These young people represent the next generation of potential
engineers. Their educational decisions are key in determining
the extent to which the UK will be equipped to deal with
continuing technological advancements that are so crucial to
the country’s economic health.
Last year, we hosted our first ‘Women of the Future’ event at
Drax Power Station, where more than 100 girls from local
schools and colleges learned from female employees about
their skills and careers. In addition, more than 3,800 visitors
from schools and academic institutions visited Drax Power
Station’s Visitor Centre, where tours are focused on learning
outcomes. Tours of Cruachan Power Station have been
made free for schools and academic institutions during
term time.
Drax also provides work experience opportunities,
apprenticeships and graduate recruitment schemes. Last
year, we recruited 18 apprentices and 6 graduates. This
included expanding our apprenticeship scheme to Drax’s
Scottish sites, where we recruited 5 new apprentices. Our
partnership with Teach First enabled the recruitment,
placement and training of 8 STEM teachers in 2019,
improving the STEM education of 1,000 students.
“Companies like Drax are developing and innovating using
new technologies which will help to combat the climate
crisis. It’s important that communities are not left behind
during the transition to a more sustainable future – making
sure people have the right skills is a key part of that” – Andy
Koss, Drax CEO Generation.
The many efforts across the sector signal recognition that
more needs to be done to harness the potential engineering
talent pool and to ensure that the sector is one which promotes
equality, diversity and inclusivity.
1.99 E
ducation and Employers. ‘It’s who you meet: Why employer contacts at school make a difference to the employment prospects of young adults’, 2012.
1.100 EngineeringUK. ‘Skills Partnership - EngineeringUK - Inspiring tomorrow’s engineers’ [online], accessed 20/03/2020.
1.101 CBI and CEC. ‘How To Support Careers and Enterprise Activities in Schools: a Practical Guide for Employers’, 2017.
1.102 The STEM Exchange. ‘The STEM Exchange - Home’ [online], accessed 20/03/2020.
1.103 Education and Employers. ‘About – Education and Employers’ [online], accessed 20/03/2020.
31
32
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
1 – Harnessing the talent pool
We can’t just tell young people engineering is for
them, we need to show them
A career in engineering has deep roots. A young person that
aspires to work at one of the UK’s leading engineering firms
needs to make a series of decisions about what to study,
starting all the way back to the age of 13 or 14 when they
choose their GCSEs.
So, it’s not enough to just make young people aware of the
opportunities available to them in engineering. We need to
show young people what a career in engineering looks like,
show them that ‘people like them’ become engineers and
inspire them to follow the path.
And there is strong evidence the ‘roots’ extend deeper still. We
know that stereotypes about careers start to form at an early
age, as far back as primary school. If we want to encourage
more young people into engineering, we need to make sure
they get the right information, advice and inspiration all the way
through their school journey.
You can’t be what you can’t see
The good news is that as a country we’re getting better at
careers education. But the demand for a highly skilled
workforce is only going to increase, and there is still a huge
amount that the engineering community can do to help secure
tomorrow’s workforce.
What does an ‘engineer’ look like?
We know that young people start to form stereotypes about
careers as early as the age of 7. It’s also at this early stage that
disparities in career aspirations begin to develop.
Research by Education and Employers found that, among
primary school pupils, nearly twice as many boys wanted to
become scientists as girls. And the numbers were even more
concerning for engineering: boys were 4 times more likely to
want to become an engineer than girls.
This isn’t the case across all STEM careers – many more girls
wanted to become doctors or vets, for example. So, this isn’t
just a case of boys preferring science or maths. It’s something
about how young people view these careers themselves and
what they imagine an ‘engineer’ or ‘scientist’ to look like.
Social inequalities as well as gender inequalities
It’s not just gender stereotypes that influence career and study
choices. How STEM is represented through education, media
and everyday life influences young people’s aspirations.
Young people’s families and social connections, their
perception of science and their socioeconomic backgrounds
all have an impact. Research from the ASPIRES 2 programme
shows that high-achieving, middle class pupils with high levels
of ‘family science capital’ were much more likely to aspire to a
career in science and to feel ‘science-y’.
Careers education is important for all young people and all
sectors. But because of these deep roots, it’s particularly
important when it comes to careers in STEM.
It’s crucial for us to ensure that young people from all
backgrounds are exposed to inspiring role models. They
should be given the chance to directly interact with
professionals from the sector. As the saying goes, you can’t be
what you can’t see. For those young people who might not
consider a career in engineering to be for ‘people like them’ –
whether because of their gender, class or ethnicity – an
experience with an inspiring role model from engineering could
be a life changing moment.
Fortunately, ‘employer engagement’ is at the centre of the
Government’s careers strategy, which is now shaping how
schools, colleges and employers prepare and inspire young
people for the world of work.
You can’t be what you can’t see.
For young people who don’t consider
engineering as being for ‘people like
them’, an experience with an inspiring role
model could be a life changing moment.
4x
Among primary school pupils, boys
are 4 times more likely to want to
become an engineer than girls.
Careers education is no longer a
box-ticking exercise; now it is about
exposing young people to a rich variety of
opportunities across their school journey.
Careers education is now about exposing young people to a rich
variety of opportunities across their school journey, using a
framework called the Gatsby benchmarks. These benchmarks,
derived from international best practice, ensure that every young
person: has information about the local labour market and the
pathways to enter an industry; has experience with employers,
apprenticeship providers and further and higher education
establishments to bring that information to life; and receives
support to make informed choices based on their ambitions,
capabilities and knowledge of the available pathways.
This provides a wealth of opportunities for employers and
engineers to engage in a young person’s journey – whether it’s
through providing careers talks, acting as a mentor, taking part
in things like robot or computing clubs (Gatsby benchmark 5)
and hosting young people at their workplace, with site tours
and offer them the opportunity to ask questions (Gatsby
benchmark 6).
Another key opportunity is to work with local teachers to help
them co-deliver curriculum lessons (Gatsby benchmark 4).
We’re supporting schools to do that through a STEM toolkit for
teachers, which links the science and maths curriculum to
careers. Bringing curriculum content to life with workplace
examples helps young people understand how their learning
has real world application and helps inspire them to consider
a career in engineering.
Careers education is no longer about box-ticking
Employer engagement works
Gone are the days when careers education was a box-ticking
exercise – a one-off work experience placement and a solitary
careers guidance interview before leaving school. Often these
interventions took place too late – after stereotypes had been
ingrained in young people’s minds and they had made subject
choices that would exclude them from a STEM career.
Evidence shows that young people who enjoy regular employer
engagements while at school have improved employability and
earnings prospects. And the affect appears to be cumulative –
the more interactions with employers they enjoy, the bigger
the benefits.
Half a million more young people
are meeting employers every year
compared with 2 years ago.
Employers have an important role to play in strengthening
the talent pipeline. A case study published by the Careers &
Enterprise Company shares the stories of 2 young women,
Rebecca and Katie, who have progressed through the
engineering educational pipeline and who attribute their
success to the engineering firms they completed their degree
apprenticeships at.
The Careers & Enterprise Company’s Enterprise Adviser
Network was set up to bring together employers, schools and
colleges across England and is ready to help connect
employers with local schools and colleges.
The ambition in the careers strategy is to give every young
person at least one employer engagement opportunity in every
year of secondary school and college. That means we need 4
million encounters every year.
We’ve made huge progress recently – half a million more
young people are meeting employers every year compared
with 2 years ago. But there is still a long way to go to ensure
that every young person has equal access to these
opportunities.
A positive outlook
These changes can’t happen overnight. And no one should
underestimate the challenge of ensuring we produce enough
highly skilled young people to meet the growing demands of
our economy. But there are clearly reasons be positive.
A study last year from CBI showed that 51% of businesses are
confident about the future availability of high-skilled workers.
This was up from less than a third of businesses over the
preceding 3 years. While challenges remain, we’re confident
that schools, colleges and employers are taking the right steps
to help young people into careers like engineering.
The more interactions young people
have with employers while they are
at school, the better their employability
and earning prospects.
Aimee Higgins
Director of Employers and Partnerships,
The Careers & Enterprise Company
33
34
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
Design and technology GCSE
entries decreased by 21.7% in
2018/19, continuing a trend of
long-term decline.
Key points
Performance in secondary school STEM qualifications is one of
the main ways to predict whether young people will continue to
higher levels of STEM education, training and employment.
Thus, the health of the UK engineering sector depends on both
high levels of participation and attainment in these
qualifications.
At this stage of the educational pathway into engineering,
however, the sector faces a number of challenges, including: a
lack of presence of engineering on the curriculum; the
underrepresentation of girls in key STEM subjects; a decline in
exam entries for some subjects that facilitate engineering; and a
critical shortage in STEM teachers.
Qualification reforms and performance measures
The government’s GCSE and A level reform process reached its
final stage in 2019. These reforms aim to raise educational
standards and better prepare students for further study and
employment. The changes to STEM qualifications include more
rigorous course content, the removal of almost all teacher
assessment from grades, a move from modular assessments to
final examinations, and a new GCSE grading system.
Participation in the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) – a set of
subjects considered to open doors to further study and
employment – continues to be a headline school performance
measure, with a government target of 75% of students taking
the EBacc by 2022. This has benefitted STEM EBacc subjects,
including maths, sciences and computing, which have seen an
increase in entries since the measure was implemented in 2010.
However, it may be contributing to the long-term decline of nonEBacc STEM subjects, which provide essential skills for the
engineering workforce.
STEM GCSE and A level entries and attainment
Across the England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the number of
entries for GCSEs in STEM EBacc subjects has been rising. For
example, entries for maths and double science rose by 4.2% and
4.8% respectively in 2019. At the same time, entries for
engineering and design and technology (non-EBacc STEM
subjects) fell by 31.1% and 21.7% respectively.
STEM subjects make up 4 of the top 10 most popular A level
subjects. There were increases in entries of 8% to 9% for biology,
chemistry and computing, with a more modest increase for
physics (up 3.0%). The pass rate for A level maths has dropped
by 5.2 percentage points, which may be due to the introduction
of the new harder maths curriculum.
35
2.1 – Context
Only 17.5% of engineering teachers
and 36.0% of computer science
teachers have a relevant post-A
level qualification.
Gender differences for GCSE and A level STEM subjects
There continues to be a notable lack of girls taking elective
STEM subjects. The GCSE STEM subject with the lowest
participation among girls is engineering, where only one in 10
entries are by girls. Despite this, girls continue to outperform
boys in almost all GCSE STEM subjects and the performance
gaps are widest in engineering, design and technology and
computing.
Encouragingly, girls were more likely than boys to pass A level
biology, design and technology, maths and physics. However,
boys are still far more likely than girls to study STEM A level
subjects that often serve as pre-requisites for engineering
degrees, including physics (77.4% male), maths (61.3% male)
and further maths (71.5% male).
STEM Scottish National qualifications
Unlike in the rest of the UK, engineering has a direct presence on
the secondary school curriculum in Scotland, with engineering
science offered at National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher level.
Scotland also provides a wider range of STEM subjects, with
applied subjects such as electronics and woodworking on offer
alongside traditional STEM subjects.
National 5 entries were broadly stable for maths, sciences and
computing science. However, there were worrying decreases in
entries in some engineering-facilitating STEM subjects,
including engineering science (down 9.0%) and design and
manufacture (down 2.6%). Maths and chemistry were the most
popular STEM subject both at Higher and Advanced Highers
qualifications. A to C pass rates in all STEM subjects at Higher
level, except for administration and IT, went down compared
with the previous year. However, some Advanced Higher
subjects, including engineering science and design and
manufacture saw large increases in pass rates.
STEM teacher shortages
The UK secondary education sector has a longstanding problem
with teacher shortages and recruitment and retention rates are
exceptionally poor for STEM subjects. Additionally, these
subjects have low specialism rates, with only 17.5% of
engineering teachers having relevant post-A level qualifications.
The shortage of specialist teachers is most acute for high
priority subjects in deprived areas outside London. However,
there are several initiatives aimed at improving STEM teacher
retention, recruitment and specialisation. These include:
financial incentives; recruitment programmes aimed at STEM
graduates and professionals; and training programmes aimed at
upskilling or reskilling current teachers.
Secondary school is a crucial early stage of a young person’s
journey into the wider world of further study, training and
employment, and therefore a formative time in their education.
Gaining a solid foundation in STEM at secondary school is also
essential for navigating everyday life and understanding our
world. But STEM education isn’t just important for each
individual – it also has strategic importance for the
engineering sector and for advancing the fields on which the
future economic prosperity of the UK depends.
Young people need to have good GCSE and A level (or
equivalent) qualifications in STEM subjects to progress on to
typical academic routes into engineering careers. Maths and
physics A levels are essential for most engineering related
degrees in England. Qualifications in subjects such as the
other sciences, further maths, computer science, and design
and technology are also accepted. If we wish to grow the talent
pool of prospective engineers in the UK, it is vital that we
inspire more young people to take up these subjects at
secondary school and ensure that those students are provided
with a positive learning experience. Improving attainment in
STEM subjects is also crucial in tackling the STEM skills
shortage because increased attainment makes it more likely
that a young person will continue on to higher levels of STEM
education (see Chapter 1 for further discussion).
The engineering community faces a significant problem with
visibility at this vital educational stage because engineering
rarely has an explicit presence in the curriculum. So few
secondary education institutions in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland offer engineering GCSE that it accounts for
only 0.06% of total GCSE entries across all 3 nations.2.1 There
are no A level engineering courses. Instead, students wishing
to take academic routes into engineering careers must
understand which of the available secondary school
qualifications will facilitate their entry. Things are different in
Scotland, where engineering has a direct presence on the
curriculum: here, engineering science is taught at National 4,
National 5, Higher and Advanced Higher levels.
As we show in Chapter 1 of this report, when young people are
at the stage of making important decisions about GCSE and A
level subjects, they still have low levels of understanding about
engineering careers and the various entry routes. For example,
results from the Engineering Brand Monitor (EBM) found that
just 39% of young people aged 14 to 16 say that they “know
what they need to do next in order to become an engineer”.2.2
Young people are opting out of STEM GCSEs and A levels
unaware that they are closing doors to engineering higher
education and training, and doing so long before they have a
good understanding of the opportunities a career in
engineering could offer.
Another challenge for the engineering community is that fewer
girls than boys take engineering facilitating subjects at both
GCSE and A level. Girls outperform boys in most GCSE STEM
subjects, make up the majority of A level entries overall and are
more likely to progress to higher education generally. But
paradoxically, relatively few decide to study elective STEM
subjects at GCSE (particularly engineering and computing).
The gender gap widens still further at A level – which is
surprising given girls’ higher attainment in STEM GCSEs – with a
particularly large drop off in the number of girls studying core
STEM subjects.
It’s crucial that the engineering sector works with government
and the secondary education sector to advocate the importance
of STEM education in secondary schools. Providing young
people in the UK with a comprehensive and inspiring STEM
secondary education that is accessible to all students, with high
participation rates and good levels of attainment, is vital for the
future health of the engineering sector.
Demographic trends in the secondary school population
The secondary school sector in England is under increasing
pressure because a demographic ‘bulge’ of pupils is currently
moving into secondary schools. The latest Department for
Education (DfE) release on schools, pupils and their
characteristics shows that the population of state-funded
secondary school age pupils has grown for the fifth year in a
row, to 3.33 million in 2019 (Figure 2.1). This growth trajectory
is expected to continue as children born during the mini baby
boom from the mid-2000s move into secondary schools.2.3
Figure 2.1 State funded secondary school population over
time (2014 to 2019) – England
3,327,970
3,258,450
3,223,090
3,184,730
3,193,420
3,181,360
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
Source: DfE. ‘Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019’ data, 2019.
As a consequence of this population boom, the average statefunded secondary school now has 965 pupils on its roll, up
from 948 in 2018.2.4 The school census shows that class sizes
have been increasing, with 8.4% of secondary school classes
having 31 to 35 pupils in 2019, up from 7.7% in 2018.2.5 There
has also been a 258% rise in the number of secondary school
pupils in ‘supersized’ classes of 36 or more, from 6,107 in 2010
to 21,843 in 2019.2.6
The increase in class sizes can be linked to severe funding
pressures faced by the state education sector, which has
meant that schools can afford to hire fewer staff.2.7 The
budgetary cuts disproportionately affect schools in the most
disadvantaged areas, with real-term cuts being three times
deeper for schools educating the poorest pupils compared
with schools in the wealthiest areas.2.8 The government has
pledged an additional £7 billion to be spent on state and
special schools between 2020 and 2023. However, for 1 in 3
schools this will mean only a 1.8% increase in funding, which
still amounts to a real-world cut after inflation.2.9 Many schools
2.1 JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results Summer 2019’, 2019.
2.2 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor 2019’, 2020.
2.3 DfE. ‘Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019’, 2019.
2.4 Ibid.
2.5 Ibid.
2.6 NEU. ‘Class sizes’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.7 The Guardian. ‘School funding crisis is blamed for surge in supersized classes - Education’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.8 The Guardian. ‘Schools in deprived areas face further cuts next year, unions say - Education’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.9 Ibid.
36
2 – Secondary education
are therefore likely to continue to face financial pressures and
teacher shortages in future.
The demographic composition of the secondary school
population is changing. There has been a steady increase in
ethnic diversity, with 31.3% of secondary school pupils in 2019
being from an ethnic minority background, up from 27.9% in
2016 (Figure 2.2). Pupils with Asian ethnic origins are the
largest minority in all school types, comprising 11.3% of all
students.
Figure 2.2 Pupils in state-funded secondary schools by
ethnicity (2016 and 2019) – England
White British
70.9%
67.0%
White Non-British
5.4%
6.2%
Asian
10.3%
11.3%
Black
5.5%
6.0%
Mixed
4.7%
5.5%
Chinese
0.4%
0.4%
Any other ethnic group
1.6%
1.9%
Unclassified
1.2%
1.7%
2016
2019
Source: DfE. ‘Schools, pupils and their characteristics’ data, 2016 and 2019.
More pupils than ever are eligible for and claiming free school
meals (FSM), reaching 14.1% in 2019.2.10 The sharp increase in
FSM eligibility is partly due to the transitional protections in place
during the roll out of Universal Credit, which means that as pupils
continue to become eligible for FSM, fewer pupils stop being
eligible. Rates of FSM eligibility vary by state school type. Overall,
academies have lower levels of students eligible for and claiming
FSM, compared to local authority maintained schools, at 13.7%
and 15.2% respectively. Secondary sponsored academies have
the highest FSM rate, with 22.1% of students eligible and claiming
free school meals. Secondary converter academies have a lower
than average FSM rate, at 10.4%.
2.10 DfE. ‘Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019’, 2019.
37
2 – Secondary education
GCSE reforms
Secondary schools in England
Following successive government reforms, there are many
different types of providers delivering school education. This
panel briefly explains the general characteristics of the more
common types. The landscape is complex, so there may be
exceptions not included here.
State maintained schools are publicly funded via local
authorities. In voluntary aided schools the governing body
contributes approximately 10% of capital costs. All are
required to follow the national curriculum and employ those
with Qualified Teacher Status. They cannot select pupils by
academic performance. Community and voluntary controlled
schools are directly accountable to the local authority, as are
some foundation schools. Other foundation schools plus all
voluntary aided schools are accountable via their governing
body. In community schools the premises are owned by the
local authority, which also employs the school staff. Where the
founding body of a voluntary aided or voluntary controlled
school is the church, it may be referred to as a faith school.
Academies, which can be primary or secondary schools, are
classified as independent, even though they are publicly
funded via central government. They are not required to follow
the national curriculum or employ staff with Qualified Teacher
Status. Academies are overseen by an academy trust. ‘Free
schools’ are academies that are new (rather than existing
schools that converted to become academies). Academies
can also be described as ‘converter’ (former schools that were
deemed to be performing well) or ‘sponsored’ (former schools
often deemed to be underperforming and now run by
sponsors). University technical colleges (UTCs) and studio
schools are academies with a strong vocational orientation for
young people aged 14 to 18/19 years, with the latter being
smaller. Each UTC is backed by employers and a university.
Grammar schools are required to follow the national
curriculum and employ qualified teachers, but can select
pupils for admission by academic performance. Although they
are funded via the local authority, they may be accountable
either via the local authority or a governing body.
Independent, private, fee-paying schools are not obliged to
follow the national curriculum or employ staff qualified in
teaching and can select pupils for admission by academic
performance.
Further education (FE) colleges offer provision (including
general education) for students aged 14 and over, while sixth
form colleges offer post 16 education.
Source: EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering UK 2018: The State of Engineering’, 2018.
2.2 – The secondary education landscape in
England
The coalition government of 2010 to 2015 undertook the largest
reform to secondary education qualifications in a generation. The
central aims of the reforms were to raise educational standards
through harder content and more rigorous assessment. Teaching
of reformed subjects began in 2015, with the first cohort of
students sitting the new exams in the academic years 2016 to 2017
and 2017 to 2018, and 2019 marking the final stages of the reform
process. The majority of those pupils who took the first reformed
GCSEs are now in higher education, training or employment.
Pupils who sat their GCSE examinations in summer 2019 will
have taken reformed qualifications in most subjects. Additional
STEM subjects were included in the list of reformed subjects
being awarded in 2019, such as design and technology,
electronics and engineering.
Figure 2.3 Comparison of the reformed and legacy GCSE
grading scales – England
New grading structure
Current grading structure
9
8
7
The reforms to GCSEs have resulted in the following changes in
England:
• G
CSEs are now graded on a numeric 9 to 1 scale (Figure 2.3)
– this allows greater differentiation at the top and middle of
the grade scale, with grade 9 equivalent to a high A* and
grade 5 equivalent to a high C
6
5
• c
ourse syllabuses have been updated to include content of a
more challenging standard for all learners
4
• r eformed GCSEs have a linear structure with the
discontinuation of modular assessments, so that all
assessments are taken as exams at the end of the 2-year
course
3
• c
oursework no longer contributes to final grades in most
subjects, although in science GCSEs pupils are required to
take mandatory practicals during the course, with exam
questions relating to the practicals comprising 15% of the
total mark
2
1
• s
cience exams must include questions relating to maths skills
that account for at least 20% of marks, divided between
biology, chemistry and physics in the ratio 1:2:3
U
A*
A
GOOD PASS
5 and above = top of C and above
AWARDING
4 and above = bottom of C and above
B
C
D
E
F
G
U
Source: Figure taken from Ofqual. ‘Grading new GCSEs from 2017’, 2017.
• t he use of tiering has been restricted to selected subjects
including maths, statistics, science and modern foreign
languages (see STEM subject tiering on page 40)
Differences in secondary school qualifications
across the United Kingdom
Secondary education is a devolved policy area in the UK, with
academic qualifications in each nation being overseen by
independent regulatory bodies, namely Ofqual in England, The
Scottish Qualifications Authority in Scotland, Qualification
Wales in Wales and The Council for Curriculum, Examinations
and Assessment in Northern Ireland.
England, Wales and Northern Ireland offer GCSEs and A levels as
the main academic qualifications for secondary school pupils,
whereas Scotland has its own qualification system which
includes National, Higher and Advanced Higher qualifications.
Since the latest policy reforms in secondary education, the
differences in qualifications across England, Wales and
Northern Ireland has widened. There is no longer alignment in
grading scales, subject content, course structures and
assessment methods. This means that making comparisons
between England, Wales and Northern Ireland is more difficult
and care needs to be taken with generalisations.
There are now 3 different GCSE grading scales across the 3
nations:
• E
ngland grades on the new 9 to 1 scale, with 9 being the
highest grade
GSCE and A level courses are also structured differently.
England has removed unitised qualifications and has moved to
a linear structure with all assessments taken at the end of each
course. In contrast, Wales and Northern Ireland have kept the
unitised structure for some subjects, with assessments taken
at the end of a unit rather than at the end of the course.
There are differences in the rules for resitting exams as well. In
England, students are required to resit all exams for that subject
when retaking the qualification, whereas in Wales and Northern
Ireland there are options to retake individual units, depending
on the subject.
The relationship between AS and A levels also differs. In
England, AS levels are standalone qualifications and do not
contribute to A level grades, so students don’t have to take an
AS qualification to enter for the corresponding A level. In Wales
and Northern Ireland, students have to take both because an AS
qualification contributes 40% of the marks for the full A level.2.11
It is important that colleges, universities and engineering
employers are aware of the national differences in
qualifications. The risk of misinterpreting exam results
increases with the added complexity in qualifications, which
could act as a barrier to talented young people entering
engineering education, training and employment.
• Wales still uses an A* to G grading scale
• N
orthern Ireland uses a 9-point scale from A* to G, which
includes a new C* grade to align with grade 5 in England
2.11 Ofqual. ‘Statement from the qualification regulators on changes to GCSEs, AS and A levels’, 2019.
38
2 – Secondary education
Changes to GCSE science options
Prior to the GCSE reforms there were three main GCSE
science routes that students could take:
• c
ore science (one GCSE) which included one module in
each of biology, chemistry and physics and aimed to
provide students with a good basic knowledge across
the sciences, suitable for students of all abilities
• d
ouble/combined science (2 GCSEs), the most common
option which included 2 modules in each of biology,
chemistry and physics to allow students to further their
understanding of the living, material and physical worlds
• s
eparate/triple science (3 GCSEs) with 3 modules in
each of biology, chemistry and physics, which provided
in-depth study and was intended for high ability
students with a keen interest in science
Following GCSE reforms, the one GCSE core science
option was phased out in most of the UK, with only
Northern Irish pupils sitting core science exams in the
2018 to 2019 academic year.
There are now 2 main routes to science GCSEs,2.12 which
are:
• c
ombined science (2 GCSEs) which requires students to
sit 6 exams at the end of the course – 2 in each of
biology, chemistry and physics – and results in students
receiving 2 identical or adjacent grades based on overall
performance across all papers
• s
eparate sciences (one to 3 GCSEs) which requires
students to sit 6 longer exams covering content from the
combined science course plus additional content in
each subject and results in students receiving a
separate grade in each subject
Assessments in both routes have a mix of question types
including multiple choice, short answer and extended
answer questions. Throughout the course, students will
take part in 8 practicals per science subject (or 16 in total
for combined science) during lesson time, which cover the
use of a range of apparatus and scientific techniques.
Exam questions relating to these practicals account for
15% of overall final marks.
2 – Secondary education
Impact of GCSE reforms
In 2018 to 2019, nearly all GCSE subjects have been through
the reform process and we have exam results data for these
subjects. We can therefore get a clearer picture of the effects
of the GCSE qualification reforms.
One of the benefits of the reformed GCSEs is that the new
grading system allows schools, colleges and universities to
better recognise the most exceptional students. This is
because there is now greater differentiation at the top of the
grading scale, with the previous A* and A grades now spread
over three grades (9 to 7). In 2018 to 2019, only 837 students
who took 7 or more GCSEs achieved grade 9 in all of them, 66%
of whom were girls.2.13
The move from modular to linear assessment was driven by the
goal of reducing the time students spend in exams and relieving
pressure on teachers. However, the concentration of highstakes exams at the end of the school year has led to an
increase in students feeling stressed, overwhelmed and
demotivated. A National Education Union (NEU) poll of teachers
found that 73% of teachers believe that students’ mental health
has worsened since the introduction of reformed GCSEs and
61% believe that student engagement in education has declined
as a result of the reforms.2.17 Some teachers have reported that
the new examination structure has not reduced the amount of
time students spend in exams because schools have increased
the number of internal assessments and mock exams.2.18
There is also greater differentiation at the former B to C range,
which is now also spread over 3 grades (6 to 4). Grade 4 is now
considered a ‘standard pass’ and grade 5 is a ‘strong pass’.
Currently, grade 4 is the minimum entry or continuation
requirement for students wishing to move on to further
education. However, there is a risk that educational institutions
may start raising the threshold to grade 5, which could affect
many young people’s chances of continuing their academic
education.2.14
The increase in the amount of content in the curriculum and
level of difficulty has also had an impact on teaching and
learning styles. Some maths teachers claim that the harder
maths content and increased emphasis on problem solving
better prepares students for maths A level. However, other
subject teachers say they feel increasing pressure to cover all
the curriculum content within allotted teaching time, which in
turn is increasing their already high levels of stress.2.19 There
are also concerns that more content leads to rote learning and
reduces scope for creativity and enjoyment of the subject.2.20
A poll found that 31% of employers were
completely unaware of the new GCSE 9
to 1 grading system.
73% of teachers believe that students’
mental health has worsened since the
introduction of the reformed GCSEs
There is a well-founded concern that employers and
universities are inadequately informed about the new 9 to 1
grading system and therefore susceptible to misinterpreting
the grades, which may have implications for young people’s
educational prospects and employment outcomes. A YouGov
poll in April 2018, commissioned by Ofqual, found that 23% of
employers, 16% of parents, 8% of universities and 6% of head
teachers incorrectly thought that 1 was the top GCSE grade.2.15
In this poll, almost a third of employers (31%) and 15% of
universities were completely unaware of the new GCSE 9 to 1
grading system.
Another reason given for the reforms was a concern that
schools in disadvantaged areas were not providing students
with an adequate core academic education. However, research
by The Sutton Trust suggests that the GCSE reforms have led
to greater educational inequality.2.16 The findings show that the
gap in attainment between disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged students was wider after the reforms than
before. Before the reforms, non-disadvantaged pupils were
1.42 times more likely to achieve a grade C or above than
disadvantaged pupils, whereas since the reforms the former
are 1.63 times more likely to achieve a grade 5 than the latter.
This will matter when it comes to entry into post-16 courses or
university admission if, as expected, grade 5 becomes the new
standard for educational progression.
AS and A level reforms
The reforms of AS and A levels are also in their final stages.2.22
In 2018 to 2019, more STEM subjects were added to the list of
those already reformed, including design and technology,
further maths, environmental science and electronics. The aim
of the A level reforms was to reduce grade inflation and make
the curriculum ‘fit for purpose’ in order to prepare students more
adequately for degree level study and the world of work.
The reforms to AS and A levels mean that in England:
• a
ssessments are now almost entirely exam based, with nonexam assessment types, such as coursework, only used
when needed to test essential skills. In science A levels,
students must pass a practical element, but the mark does
not contribute to their final grade.
STEM subject tiering
Some GCSE STEM subjects, including maths, physics,
chemistry, biology and combined science, are tiered so
that students can be entered for either foundation level or
higher level papers. Foundation tier is designed for
students aiming for a 1 to 4 (G to C) grade, whereas higher
tier is for those aiming for grades 4 to 9 (C to A*).
Around 20% of questions on exam papers will be the same
for foundation and higher tier levels. These questions are
used by exam boards to align standards between tiers so
that it isn’t easier to attain the same grade in one tier than
the other.
In 2018 to 2019, there was a ‘safety net’ for higher-tier
students who just missed the grade 4 boundary, but if they
missed the safety net, they didn’t receive a grade in that
subject at all. The safety net worked by allowing exam
boards, in exceptional cases, to offer a 4-3 or 3-3 grade for
higher tier combined science or grade 3 for separate
sciences. These exceptions were made to prevent
thousands of higher tier students from going ungraded.
Around one third of schools and colleges in 2017 to 2018
had higher tier students who were awarded 3-3 in
combined science and many more schools had pupils who
achieved a 4-3.
With no safety net now in place, Ofqual recommends that
students with a target grade of 4 or 5 should be entered for
foundation tier to prevent them from missing out on a grade
entirely.2.21 Schools with large numbers of exceptions made
for higher tier grade 3s in 2017 to 2018 were asked to
consider whether more students should be entered for
foundation tier exams, as no exceptions would be made in
2018 to 2019. Schools appear to have been more cautious
in 2018 to 2019, as there were fewer ungraded higher tier
students compared with previous years.
Grades for AS and A levels have retained the same A* to E
grading scale as before the reforms. For newly reformed
subjects, the regulatory bodies have carried forward the
grading standards from the previous year, so that candidates
will receive same grade as if they were taking the legacy
qualification. However, the Joint Council for Qualifications
cautions that comparisons between year-on-year outcomes
are more difficult during times of reform.2.23
• p
revious modular courses have been made linear and there
are no longer exams in January. AS exams are taken at the
end of one year of study and A levels taken at the end of 2
years of study.
• A
S qualifications are now entirely separate from A level, with AS
grades no longer contributing towards the final A level grade.
• course content has been updated with greater input from
universities and professional institutions and societies to
ensure they adequately prepare students for university.
• e
xams make greater use of ‘synoptic questions’ that require
students to integrate content from across different topics
and are designed to test both breadth and depth of learning.
2.12 Edexcel. ‘GCSE (9-1) Sciences 2016 - Parent guide’, 2016.
2.13 Ofqual. ‘Guide to GCSE results for England’, 2019.
2.14 FFT Education Datalab. ‘The effect of GCSE reforms: Have they widened the disadvantage gap?’, 2019.
2.15 YouGov. ‘Perceptions of A levels, GCSEs and other qualifications in England – Wave 16’, 2018.
2.16 The Sutton Trust. ‘Making the Grade’, 2019.
39
2.17 NEU. ‘Reformed GCSEs are damaging the mental health of young people, and failing to accurately reflect their abilities’, 2019.
2.18 Schools Week. ‘GCSE reforms led to more mock exams, report warns’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.19 N EU. ‘Changes to GCSEs and A-levels are damaging students’ mental health and increasing teachers’ workload – NEU poll’ [online], accessed 21/04/2020.
2.20 Ofqual. ‘GCSE reform in schools: The impact of GCSE reforms on students’ preparedness for A level maths and English literature GCSE reform in schools 2’, 2019.
2.21 Ofqual. ‘GCSE tiering decisions for summer 2019’, 2019.
2.22 Ofqual. ‘Get the facts: AS and A level reform’, 2018.
2.23 JCQ. ‘GCE 2019: Notes for users of the JCQ results tables’, 2019.
40
2 – Secondary education
Case study – Changes to A level maths
Janet Holloway, Associate Director Standards for Design,
Development and Evaluation of General Qualifications,
Ofqual
The first examinations of the reformed A level
mathematics qualifications, for students following a
2-year course of study, took place in summer 2019.
These qualifications now have compulsory core content
that includes pure mathematics, statistics and mechanics.
A copy of the content can be found in the Ofqual
Conditions document.2.24 The previous qualifications had
pure mathematics in the compulsory content but offered
students the opportunity to study either statistics,
mechanics or decision mathematics, or a combination of
these.
The content of the reformed qualifications was developed
by the A level Content Advisory Board (ALCAB) panel for
mathematics on behalf of the Department for Education.
The specialist subject panel was made up of experienced
academics from higher education.
Previously, A level maths qualifications were unitised,
enabling students to take a series of smaller assessments
throughout their course of study. They were assessed at 2
levels (AS and A level) that were combined in the final
result (giving the grade). The unitised structure also
enabled students to re-sit individual units as they
progressed through their course of study – an opportunity
that the majority took.
The new A levels are linear, so assessment takes place at
the end of the course of study, which normally lasts 2
years. Students are examined on a wider body of content
in each examination, enabling them to demonstrate their
knowledge, understanding and skills across the full course
of study, which reflects the government’s policy decision.
As a result of these changes, higher education and
employers can have confidence that all A level
mathematics students will have followed the same course
of study and assessment that is appropriate for
progression to further study or employment.
Impact of AS and A level reforms
STEM A levels have been updated with new content,
developed with input from subject experts from universities
and professional institutions and societies. The updated
syllabuses include increased mathematical and quantitative
content in physics, chemistry, biology and computer science.
There has also been a significant overhaul in the computer
science curriculum, with greater focus on programming,
algorithms and problem solving. We welcome the inclusion of
subject experts in the development of A level content and hope
this will provide young people with relevant subject knowledge
and skills that prepare them well for entering higher education
and training.
There are concerns within the teaching community that
despite the new A levels being more rigorous in terms of
2 – Secondary education
content and better at promoting independent learning, they are
not adequately preparing students for the type of assessments
they will face at university.2.25 For example, whereas STEM A
level assessments are based entirely on end of year
examinations, most engineering related degrees will involve
frequent project work, group work and modular tests and
examinations to make up the final degree classification.
The decoupling of AS and A level qualifications in England
means that AS qualifications no longer contribute to final A
level grades but are instead an optional supplementary
qualification. An AS qualification is worth 40% of an A level in
the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)
points system. For university applications where courses use
the tariff system, an A grade at A level is worth 48 points and A
grade at AS level is worth 20.2.26
The decoupling and effective devaluing of AS levels has led to
AS entries falling to small numbers. In 2018 to 2019, there were
114,000 AS level entries, more than a 10-fold decrease from
the 1.25 million entries in 2014 to 2015.2.27 Some universities
are in favour of schools continuing to offer AS level
qualifications, as they are useful predictions of A level
performance and could be used as the deciding factor on
results day if a student misses their target A level grades.
Other universities are now placing greater emphasis on
attainment at GCSE to predict A level performance.
Figure 2.4 English Baccalaureate subjects
English
(2 GCSEs)
Maths
(1 GCSE)
+
English language
+
Science
(2 or 3 GCSEs)
+
Double/combined
science
Maths
and
Humanities
(1 GCSE)
+
A modern
language
or
History
or
3 out of biology,
chemistry, physics
and computer
science
English literature
Languages
(1 GCSE)
or
An ancient
language
Geography
Source: Figure taken from DfE. ‘Implementing the English Baccalaureate: Government consultation response’, 2017.
School performance measures
School quality in England is assessed based on a number
of performance measures, published in secondary school
performance tables.2.28 The rationale of these performance
measures, as provided in the DfE’s statement of intent, is to
improve educational standards and provide an accessible
source of comparative information on pupil progress and
attainment.2.29
The headline performance measures2.30 used to rank
secondary schools in the 2019 performance tables are:
• e
ntries into the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) – the
percentage of pupils at a school taking GCSE qualifications
in: English (language and literature), maths, science (double
or triple science), a language (either modern or ancient) and
a humanity (either geography or history) (Figure 2.4)
• E
Bacc average point score (EBacc APS) – the average point
scores across the five pillars of the English Baccalaureate
• P
rogress 8 – measured by calculating the progress that
pupils have made between the end of key stage 2 and the
end of key stage 4, compared with pupils across the country
who attained similar results in key stage 2, based on
outcomes in 8 qualifications: English, maths, 3 EBacc
subjects and 3 other GCSE or approved qualifications
(Figure 2.5)
Figure 2.5 Progress 8 measure
1
2
English
Maths
Double-weighted*
Double-weighted
* Higher score of English language or
English literature double-weighted if a
pupil has taken both qualifications
3
4
5
Facilitating subjects/
qualifications
(Sciences, computer science,
geography, history and languages)
6
7
8
‘Open group’ remaining facilitating
subjects/ qualifications and other
approved qualifications
(GCSEs and other approved academic,
arts or vocational qualifications)
Source: Figure taken from Ofqual. ‘Vocational qualifications, Progress 8 and ‘gaming’’, 2018.
• A
ttainment 8 – measured by attainment at key stage 4 in the
same 8 qualifications as in progress 8
• p
upil destinations – the percentage of students who
continue on to education or employment after key stage 4
• a
ttainment in English and maths – the percentage of pupils
who achieve grade 5 (a ‘strong pass’) or above in English and
maths GCSE
2.24 Ofqual. ‘GCE subject-level conditions and requirements for mathematics’, 2016.
2.25 The Conversation. ‘Why reformed A levels are not preparing undergraduates for university study’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.26 Best Schools. ‘The A Level Curriculum’, 2019.
2.27 FFT Education Datalab. ‘A-Level results 2019: The main trends in grades and entries’, 2019.
2.28 DfE. ‘School and college performance tables’, 2019.
2.29 DfE. ‘2019 School and College Performance Tables: Statement of Intent’, 2019.
2.30 DfE. ‘Secondary accountability measures: Guide for maintained secondary schools, academies and free schools’, 2019.
41
42
2 – Secondary education
The impact of school performance measures on
STEM subjects
The headline performance measures used in the school
performance tables strongly influence which areas of the
curriculum schools choose to spend time and resources on.
This is good news for most STEM subjects, such as maths,
physics, chemistry, biology and computer science, which are
included in the EBacc and Progress 8 performance measures.
These subjects have seen greater uptake by students (see the
section on STEM GCSE entries and attainment for more
in-depth discussion) and have been given more teaching time
and budget since the introduction of the EBacc. Research by
the National Foundation of Educational Research using data
from the School Workforce Census has found that curriculum
time allocated to EBacc subjects rose from 55% to 67%
between 2010 and 2018.2.31
However, both the teaching and engineering communities have
raised concerns that the EBacc incentivises a narrowed focus
on ‘core’ STEM subjects to the detriment of non-EBacc STEM
subjects, such as design and technology, which are vital for
developing the breadth of skills needed for the engineering
sector and the wider economy.2.32, 2.33 Not only are these
subjects being given less teaching time, but in addition subject
specialist teachers are not being replaced and budgets are
being cut.2.34 This concerns the engineering and technology
sectors, which rely on student participation in these subjects
to grow their talent pool.
2 – Secondary education
However, Progress 8 does have limitations because it doesn’t
take into account pupil characteristics, including level of
disadvantage. Disadvantage is strongly correlated with
progress at key stage 4, with disadvantaged pupils achieving
lower Progress 8 scores on average. Another concern is that
the focus on progress rather than attainment could instil lower
academic expectations, given that colleges and universities
base their acceptance decisions on attainment, not progress.
New Ofsted inspection framework
Following an in-depth consultation process, Ofsted
published a new education inspection framework that has
been used in school inspections since September 2019.2.38
It is claimed to be “the most evidence-based, research
informed and tested framework in Ofsted’s 26-year
history”.2.39 The new inspection framework is intended to
redirect focus on the curriculum, reduce unnecessary
workload for teachers and ensure students have access to
high-quality education.
Some of the main changes include:
• a
new quality of education judgement to focus
inspection on what pupils learn through the curriculum
and reduce reliance on performance data, meaning that
pupil outcomes won’t be the primary factor for
inspection judgement
One reason given for the introduction of the EBacc was to
ensure all students receive a core academic education that will
open doors to higher education and employment. This is based
on government concerns that pupils at schools in
disadvantaged areas are more likely to participate in what it
considers ‘Mickey Mouse subjects’ that do not facilitate entry
into higher education and employment.2.35 However, evidence
suggests that there is still a clear gap in participation in the
EBacc between students in advantaged and disadvantaged
areas. In 2018 to 2019, only 27.5% of disadvantaged pupils
were entered into the EBacc, compared with 44.5% of all other
pupils.2.36 This disparity in EBacc participation exists even for
high achieving disadvantaged pupils.
• a
n end to the collection of internal performance data,
with the aim of reducing the administrative workload for
teachers
One argument in favour of Progress 8 is that it provides a
positive step forward in how we measure school
performance.2.37 This is because it does not focus only on
attainment, which is strongly correlated with intake, but also
on the degree to which students have improved in their
academic achievements compared with students with similar
prior attainment. This focus on progress rather than
attainment incentivises schools to be accountable for the
academic achievements of all students and not just the ones
that need to get over the grade 4/5 or C/D threshold in exams.
We welcome the ambitions of these changes, given how
interwoven subjects are in the real world – especially in the
application of engineering – and we will be watching
closely how they are implemented in practice.
• a
n end to the culture of ‘teaching to the test’ and offrolling students with poor academic performance
• a
new separate behaviour judgement to give parents
reassurance that behaviour in the school is good
The inspection framework states that schools should have
high and equal aspirations and provide an ambitious
curriculum that all pupils study. The curriculum must be
broad and balanced, providing a wide range of subjects
that are coherent and well sequenced.
2.31 NFER. ‘Changing the subject? How EBacc is changing school timetables’, 2017.
2.32 Schools Week. ‘EBacc concerns: will the curriculum slim down?’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.33 Schools Week. ‘Engineering and design technology GCSEs flop as EBacc soars’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.34 EDSK. ‘A Step Baccwards: Analysing the impact of the ‘English Baccalaureate’ performance measure’, 2019.
2.35 The Telegraph. ‘Decline of ‘Mickey Mouse’ GCSEs revealed as entries for Media Studies and Home Economics plummet’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.36 DfE. ‘Key stage 4 performance, 2019 (revised)’, 2020.
2.37 The Education Policy Institute. ‘Analysis: The introduction of Progress 8 ‘, 2017.
2.38 Ofsted. ‘Education inspection framework’, 2019.
2.39 Ofsted. ‘Ofsted launches a consultation on proposals for changes to the education inspection framework’, 2019.
43
2.3 – STEM GCSEs in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, over 5.5 million GCSE results
were issued,2.40 with pupils sitting exams for an average of 8 or 9
subjects.
GCSEs are an important stage in engineering educational
pathways as they are globally recognised academic
qualifications that are highly valued by schools, colleges and
employers. Entry and attainment rates in GCSE subjects that
facilitate engineering provide a useful early indicator of the
supply of potential engineers entering educational pathways
towards engineering.
GCSE selection is the first opportunity for students to choose
which subjects to study and which to drop. Students may be
offered the choice between taking the double award science
GCSE (combined science) or the triple award science subjects
(separate sciences).2.41 They may also choose to take elective
STEM subjects, such as design and technology, and computer
science. GCSE subject choices and results shape the options
available to young people in terms of their next qualifications,
university applications and overall career prospects.
STEM GCSE entries
In 2018 to 2019, the total number of GCSE entries in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland was just over 5.5 million, increasing
in step with the growing population of 16 year olds (increases of
1.4% and 1.5%, respectively).2.42
As can be seen in Figure 2.6, there were increases in entries for
some GCSE STEM subjects in the academic year 2018 to 2019,
including large increases in computing (up 7.2%), maths (up
4.2%) and double science (up 4.8%). There were smaller
increases of around 1% in biology, chemistry and physics. Other
GCSE STEM subjects had striking decreases in entries including
ICT (down 82.9%), engineering (down 31.1%) and design and
technology (down 21.7%).
The dramatic decrease in entries for ICT GCSE was due to the
discontinuation of the subject, which in 2018 to 2019 was only
available in Wales. Many students who would have chosen to
take ICT GCSE are now studying computing, which has
contributed to the uplift in computing GCSE entries. However,
total entries into computing are still worryingly low given the
growing dominance of the tech sector and the need for
computer science skills.
The EBacc is changing the subjects
students are choosing to study at GCSE:
over the past 5 years, entries in STEM
subjects included in the performance
measure substantially increased while
entries for those excluded significantly
decreased.
Maths entries are increasing, in part due to the requirement for
those entering post-16 education to have a minimum of a grade
4 in both GCSE maths and English. This has resulted in a
growing number of people aged 17 or over taking maths GCSE.
In addition, more independent schools are entering their pupils
into GCSEs instead of international GCSEs (iGCSEs), which are
not counted in the entry statistics.2.43
When looking at the change in STEM GCSE entries over the last
5 years, a clear pattern emerges: entries for all STEM subjects
included in the EBacc have increased substantially, whereas
entries for all STEM subjects not included in the EBacc have
decreased considerably. For example, GCSE entries in biology,
chemistry and physics have increased by over 20% over 5 years,
whereas engineering GCSE entries have decreased by 31.9% and
design and technology by 53.3%. It seems apparent that the
EBacc is changing the subjects students are choosing to study
at GCSE. Five years ago there was a 70:30 split between entries
into EBacc and non-EBacc subjects, whereas now the divide is
80:20.2.44 It is important that the engineering community
considers how this will impact the skillsets of young people
entering post-16 education and training.
Figure 2.6 Changes in GCSE entries over time in selected
STEM subjects (2013/14 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
Subject
Entries in
2018/19 (No.)
Change over
1 year (%)
Change over
5 years (%)
Biology
177,454
0.6% ▲
25.1% ▲
Chemistry
170,034
1.0% ▲
23.0% ▲
Computing
80,027
7.2% ▲
377.1% ▲
Design and
technology
99,659
-21.7% ▼
-53.3% ▼
Engineering
3,424
-31.1% ▼
-31.9% ▼
9,515
-82.9% ▼
-90.2% ▼
Mathematics
ICT
778,858
4.2% ▲
5.8% ▲
Physics
168,330
1.1% ▲
22.7% ▲
Science: double
award
839,258
4.8% ▲
–
5,547,447
1.4% ▲
6.3% ▲
All subjects
Source: JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer’ data, 2014 to 2019.
Included in the academic year 2017 to 2018 is a new combined science double award GCSE.
This replaces the single GCSE awards in science and additional science. The entries will be
doubled to reflect the achievement of 2 grades in the subject.
‘–’ denotes no value available as subject was introduced after 2014 or has been discontinued.
To view this table with numbers from 2012/13 see Figure 2.6 in our Excel resource.
2.40 JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer 2019’ data, 2019.
2.41 N
ot all schools offer their students the choice to study triple science. There is some evidence to suggest this differs by levels of social and economic deprivation. See chapter 1
and EngineeringUK’s ‘Social mobility in engineering’ briefing for further information.
2.42 JCQ. ‘GCSE Press Notice UK Summer 2019’, 2019.
2.43 FFT Education Datalab. ‘GCSE results 2019: The main trends in grades and entries’, 2019.
2.44 Schools Week. ‘GCSE results: ‘Bleak’ and ‘worrying’ drop in non-EBacc subjects [online], accessed 24/03/20.
44
2 – Secondary education
STEM GCSE entries by gender
There is a clear difference in the proportion of girls taking core
and elective STEM subjects at GCSE (Figure 2.7). Girls and
boys are equally likely to take maths, double science and
individual science GCSEs, which is not surprising because all
students must take these subjects. However, there is a notable
dearth of girls choosing to take GCSEs in engineering,
computing, ICT and design and technology.
The subject with the lowest participation by girls is
engineering, in which they account for only one in 10 entries
(10.4%). This is followed by computing (21.4% female) and
design and technology (29.8% female).
2 – Secondary education
Figure 2.7 GCSE entries in selected STEM subjects by gender
(2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Biology 50.1%
49.9%
Chemistry 49.3%
50.7%
Computing 21.4%
78.6%
Design and technology 29.8%
70.2%
64.1%
Mathematics 50.3%
49.7%
Physics 49.0%
51.0%
Science: double award 49.8%
50.2%
All subjects 50.1%
Female
Most other STEM subjects have lower than average pass rates,
at 59.6% for maths, 62.7% for computing, 52.5% for engineering
and 63.8% for design and technology.
49.9%
Figure 2.8 GCSE pass rates in selected STEM subjects
(2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Male
Source: JCQ. 'GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer 2019' data, 2019.
12.6%
The perfect storm for Design and Technology in
secondary schools
The number of secondary school students studying design
and technology (D&T) subjects in Key Stage 4 is in long-term
decline. Between the academic years 2002 to 2003 and 2018
to 2019, the number of pupils studying D&T at GCSE has
fallen by over three quarters (77%), from 439,600 students to
99,700.2.45
This considerable drop is concerning for the engineering
sector because, as stated in a report by the James Dyson
Foundation, “D&T is the subject that most directly equips
students with the skills they need to become engineers”.2.46
Understanding the reasons why D&T is in decline is
necessary if we wish to reverse the trend. In a speech to the
Innovate Conference in 2019, Amanda Spielman, Ofsted’s
Chief Inspector of Education, outlined the main contributing
factors that has built up to a ‘perfect storm’ for D&T over the
past 20 years.2.47 Some of the key points have been
summarised below.
Changes to education policy
D&T stopped being a compulsory subject in Key Stage 4 in
2000. Since then, schools have been able to choose whether
or not to offer the subject. In 2004, BTECs and vocational
qualifications were given equivalence in the league tables to
GCSEs, which dramatically changed the subjects students
were selecting at GCSE and A level, with D&T GCSE losing
out in this realignment. In more recent years, D&T has not
been given equal standing to other STEM subjects in
performance measures - it is not included in the EBacc and
only considered an optional subject in Progress 8. These
policy changes put out a clear message that D&T is not as
highly valued as other STEM subjects.
Shortage of qualified D&T teachers
A major barrier to high quality D&T education is lack of
specialist teachers. In 2018 to 2019, D&T suffered the
greatest shortfall in trainee teacher recruitment of all STEM
subjects in England, with only 25.6% of the modest target of
1,167 trainee teachers being reached.2.48 D&T also has a
problem with keeping teachers up to date with subject
knowledge and expertise. Technological innovation happens
at great speed and teachers’ knowledge often lags behind.
Schools can find it difficult to send teachers on professional
development courses to update their skills, especially in
times of acute teacher shortages.
Budget pressures
D&T is a particularly expensive subject for schools to provide
because of the space, increasingly specialised equipment
and raw materials it requires. This means that in times of
funding pressures, it is the first subject to have cuts. This
may explain the squeezing out of D&T from the curriculum.
A report by the James Dyson Foundation on improving
engineering education in schools2.49 identified further
problems facing D&T:
Outdated and uninspiring course content
The previous specification for D&T GCSE was heavily
weighted towards knowledge and traditional skills rather
than focusing on innovation and new design. Typically, pupils
would be given closed briefs to design near-identical
products using traditional technologies. In 2017 a new D&T
GCSE curriculum was introduced, which has made steps to
improve and modernise D&T with the addition of newer
technologies and approaches to design including robotics,
3D printing and iterative product design.
Perceptions D&T
Physics
90.9%
Chemistry
90.1%
Biology
89.7%
ICT
74.8%
All subjects
67.3%
Design and technology
63.8%
Computing
62.7%
Mathematics
59.6%
Science: double award
55.9%
Engineering
52.5%
Source: JCQ. 'GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer 2019' data, 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C or 9 to 4.
D&T has an image problem as there is lack of a clear
understanding of what the subject involves. It isn’t
considered to be an academically rigorous subjects and is
not given the same credence as other STEM subjects, such
as engineering and maths. It is associated with a narrow set
of skills, such as ‘wood working’ or ‘fixing things’ and is
considered a subject that is more suited to boys than girls.
2.45 JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results Summer 2019’, 2019.
2.46 The James Dyson Foundation. ‘Addressing the skills shortage: A new approach to engineering education in schools’, 2019.
2.47 FE News. ‘Design and technology students in long-term decline: Where are the designers and innovators of the future going to come from?’ [online], accessed 23/04/2020.
2.48 DfE. ‘Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Census for the academic year 2018 to 2019, England’, 2018.
2.49 The James Dyson Foundation. ‘Addressing the skills shortage: A new approach to engineering education in schools’, 2019.
45
GCSE pass rates, as measured by the percentage of entries
resulting in grades A* to C or 9 to 4, were more or less the same
in 2018 to 2019 as the previous academic year, with just a small
increase of 0.4 percentage points.2.50 The pass rate across all
GCSE subjects currently stands at 67.3% and this has remained
stable for the past 5 years.
Physics, chemistry and biology continue to have very high pass
rates, at around 90% for each subject (Figure 2.8). The pass
rate for the combined double science award is much lower at
55.9%, which may be attributed to the practice of streaming by
ability and possibly a lower level of interest in science among
these pupils.
Engineering 10.4% 89.6%
ICT 35.9%
STEM GCSE attainment
Despite lower than average pass rates for some STEM
subjects, Figure 2.9 shows that pass rates for all of them
increased in 2018 to 2019, with large increases in for ICT (up
7.7 percentage points), engineering (up 6.5 percentage points)
and design and technology (up 2.0 percentage points). Some
GCSE STEM subjects have seen considerable changes in pass
rates over 5 years. For example, pass rates in engineering
GCSEs have increased by over 10 percentage points, from
41.6% in 2013 to 2014 to 52.5% in 2018 to 2019.
Figure 2.9 Changes in GCSE pass rates over time in selected
STEM subjects (2013/14 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
Subject
Pass rates in
2018/19 (%)
Change over
1 year (%p)
Change over
5 years (%p)
Biology
89.7%
0.4%p ▲
-0.6%p ▼
Chemistry
90.1%
0.3%p ▲
-0.6%p ▼
Computing
62.7%
1.1%p ▲
-2.8%p ▼
Design and
technology
63.8%
2.0%p ▲
2.8%p ▲
Engineering
52.5%
6.5%p ▲
10.9%p ▲
ICT
74.8%
7.7%p ▲
5.3%p ▲
Mathematics
59.6%
0.2%p ▲
-2.8%p ▼
Physics
90.9%
0.2%p ▲
-0.4%p ▼
Science: double
award
55.9%
0.6%p ▲
–
All subjects
67.3%
0.4%p ▲
-1.5%p ▼
Source: JCQ. ‘GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer’ data, 2014 to 2019.
Included in the academic year 2017 to 2018 is a new combined science double award GCSE.
This replaces the single GCSE awards in science and additional science.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C or 9 to 4.
‘–’ denotes no value available as subject was introduced after 2014
To view this table with pass rates from 2012/13, see Figure 2.9 in our Excel resource.
STEM GCSE attainment by gender
Girls outperform boys in almost all GCSE STEM subjects in
terms of pass rates at A* to C or 9 to 4 (Figure 2.10). For
example, the pass rate in double award science was 58.5% for
girls and 53.4% for boys, a difference of 5.1 percentage points.
The only exceptions are maths and physics, in which boys
perform marginally better than girls.
The differences in attainment for elective STEM subjects are
even larger, with girls far outperforming boys in some subjects.
For example, in engineering the pass rate was 70.1% for girls
compared with just 50.5% for boys, a difference of 19.6
percentage points. However, here we need to take account of
the small sample sizes – only 355 (10.4%) of entries into
engineering GCSE were made by girls. Similarly, there was a
15.9 percentage points gender gap in design and technology,
where 75.0% of girls achieved grades A* to C or 9 to 4
compared with 59.1% of boys.
2.50 J
CQ. ‘GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer 2019’, 2019.
46
2 – Secondary education
Figure 2.10 GCSE pass rates in selected STEM subjects by
gender (2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Biology
90.3%
89.0%
Chemistry
90.7%
89.6%
Computing
66.2%
61.7%
Design and technology
75.0%
59.1%
Engineering
2 – Secondary education
Regional trends in STEM GCSE attainment
The proportion of students achieving A* to C or 9 to 4 in their
GCSEs varies between England, Northern Ireland and Wales
(Figure 2.11). Of the three nations, Northern Ireland has by far
the highest average pass rate at 82.2% compared with England
(67.1%) and Wales (62.8%). However, GCSE attainment in these
countries is no longer reliably comparable, due to the
increased devolution of secondary education policy.
Nevertheless, the apparent variation in attainment in England,
Wales and Northern Ireland is worrying and has been linked to
teacher training and education standards.2.51
Since 2015 to 2016, pass rates in Wales have seen a decline,
although there was a slight increase of 1.2 percentage points
in 2018 to 2019. Qualifications Wales has called on the Welsh
government and regulators to work together to understand the
reasons behind the long-term decline.
Figure 2.11 GCSE pass rates by nation over time (2008/09 to
2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
80
70.1%
50.5%
75
ICT
80.8%
70
71.4%
Mathematics
59.2%
60
59.9%
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Physics
Wales
90.8%
91.1%
Science: double award
58.5%
53.4%
All subjects
71.7%
62.9%
Female
65
Male
Source: JCQ. 'GCSE (Full Course) Results, Summer 2019' data, 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C or 9 to 4.
England
Northern Ireland
There were large increases in entries for some applied STEM
subjects, including the newly introduced applications of
mathematics (up 79.6%), music technology (up 25.7%),
practical electronics (up 16.8%) and practical woodworking (up
11.6%). However, there were worrying decreases in entries in
some engineering facilitating STEM subjects, including
engineering science (down 9.0%), design and manufacture
(down 2.6%) and fashion and textile technology (down 14.0%).
Figure 2.12 Changes in GCSE pass rates over time by nation
and region (2013/14 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern
Ireland
Over 4 years, National 5 entries for maths increased by 14.0%,
probably due to the discontinuation of the life skills
mathematics course, which was last examined in summer
2017. Across the same time period, there were decreases in
entries for computing science (down 17.2%), administration
and IT (down 13.1%) and design and manufacture (down
13.3%): these are key subjects for the engineering sector, so
this is a concern. Encouragingly, there have been substantial
increases in entries for some practical subjects, including
practical electronics (up 67.2%), practical metalworking (up
35.7%) and practical woodworking (up 23.8%).
Nation/region
Pass rates in
2018/19 (%)
England
Change over
1 year (%p)
Change over
5 years (%p)
67.1%
0.5%p ▲
-1.5%p ▼
North East
63.8%
-0.7%p ▼
-1.9%p ▼
North West
64.9%
0.3%p ▲
-3.4%p ▼
Yorkshire and
the Humber
64.1%
0.6%p ▲
-0.8%p ▼
West Midlands
63.8%
0.7%p ▲
-2.9%p ▼
East Midlands
65.8%
0.7%p ▲
0.1%p ▲
Eastern
67.1%
-0.1%p ▼
-1.7%p ▼
Subject
South West
68.3%
0.5%p ▲
-0.7%p ▼
South East
70.2%
0.6%p ▲
-0.7%p ▼
London
70.6%
0.3%p ▲
-1.1%p ▼
Wales
62.8%
1.2%p ▲
-3.8%p ▼
Northern Ireland
82.2%
1.1%p ▲
4.2%p ▲
All nations
67.3%
0.4%p ▲
-1.5%p ▼
Source: JCQ. ‘Entry trends, gender and regional charts GCSE’ data, 2014 to 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C or 9 to 4.
To view this table with pass rates from 2012/13, see Figure 2.12 in our Excel resource.
Source: Figure taken from BBC News. ‘GCSEs: A* to C pass rate increases after
dip in 2018’, 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C or 9 to 4.
2.4 – STEM National 5s in Scotland
Within England, the difference between the regions with the
highest and lowest pass rates is 6.8 percentage points.2.52 As
shown in Figure 2.12, London has the highest proportion of
students attaining grades 4/C and above, at 70.6%, closely
followed by the South East at 70.2%. The West Midlands and
the North East have the lowest pass rates at 4/C and above, at
63.8% for both regions.
National 5s are the qualifications Scottish pupils take at age 15
or 16. They are broadly equivalent to GCSEs. Students typically
study between 6 and 8 National 5 subjects, which are
assessed through a mix of coursework and exams. Subjects
range from traditional academic subjects, including maths and
sciences, to more practical subjects, such as electronics and
woodworking. They are graded from A to D and ‘No award’,
with grades A to C equivalent to GCSE grades 9 to 4.
There is substantial regional variation in pass rates for GCSE
STEM subjects.2.53 For maths, the difference between the
counties with the highest and lowest pass rates was 26.5
percentage points in 2018 to 2019. The counties with the
highest pass rates were Rutland (80.3%), Dorset (70.1%) and
Surrey (70.0%). The counties with the lowest pass rates were
West Midlands (51.3%), West Yorkshire (52.5%) and
Merseyside (53.8%).
In physics, there was a smaller gap between the counties with
the highest and lowest pass rates, at 12.4 percentage
points.2.54 The top performing counties were Hampshire
(94.9%), Bristol (94.7%) and Greater London (94.7%), while the
bottom performing counties were Suffolk (82.5%),
Staffordshire (83.2%) and Lincolnshire (84.7%).
2.51 BBC. ‘Further drop in GCSE A* to C passes in Wales’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.52 JCQ. ‘GCSE Additional Charts Summer 2019’, 2019.
2.53 Ofqual. ‘Map of GCSE (9 to 1) grade outcomes by county in England’ [online], accessed 21/04/2020.
2.54 Ibid.
47
It’s important to understand the regional context, including
levels of deprivation, when interpreting regional differences in
attainment. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research
found that when factors that are outside a school’s control are
taken into account, such as levels of deprivation, special
educational needs and gender, schools in poor performing
areas are actually adding more value to their pupils’ learning
than those in other parts of the country.2.55
In 2017 to 2018, changes were made to the National 5
qualifications, removing mandatory unitised assessments to
reduce the assessment workload for teachers and students.
Grades are now based on final exams and externally assessed
coursework.
STEM National 5 entries
As can be seen in Figure 2.13, the most popular STEM subjects
in 2018 to 2019 in terms of National 5 entries were maths
(41,586), biology (21,549), chemistry (16,035) and physics
(13,792). Entries in these subjects were more-or-less stable,
with the exception of biology where there was 3.0% increase.
Figure 2.13 Changes in National 5 entries over time in
selected STEM subjects (2014/15 to 2018/19) – Scotland
Entries in
2018/19 (No.)
Change over
1 year (%)
Change over
4 years (%)
Administration
and IT
4,885
2.5% ▲
-13.1% ▼
Applications of
mathematics
4,458
79.6% ▲
–
Biology
21,549
3.0% ▲
-0.4% ▼
Chemistry
16,035
0.7% ▲
-3.7% ▼
Computing science
6,344
-1.5% ▼
-17.2% ▼
Design and
manufacture
4,481
-2.6% ▼
-13.3% ▼
Engineering science
1,646
-9.0% ▼
-9.0% ▼
382
-14.0% ▼
-19.6% ▼
1,461
-0.9% ▼
-25.6% ▼
Fashion and textile
technology
Health and food
technology
Mathematics
Music technology
41,586
0.0%p
14.0% ▲
1,110
25.7% ▲
122.9% ▲
13,792
0.7% ▲
-7.7% ▼
209
16.8% ▲
67.2% ▲
Practical
metalworking
1,267
0.6% ▲
35.7% ▲
Practical
woodworking
5,298
11.6% ▲
23.8% ▲
288,552
2.4% ▲
0.2% ▲
Physics
Practical
electronics
All subjects
Source: SQA. ‘Attainment Statistics’ data, 2015 to 2019.
‘–’ denotes no value available as subject was added in later years.
To view this table with entries from 2014/15, see Figure 2.13 in our Excel resource.
2.55 Institute for Public Policy Research. ‘Northern schools putting education at the heart of the northern powerhouse’, 2016.
48
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
STEM National 5 attainment
Figure 2.14 shows that the proportion of students achieving
grades A to C in their National 5 qualifications in the 2018 to
2019 academic year was broadly stable, with a small increase
of 0.7 percentage points from 77.4% in 2017 to 2018 to 78.2% in
2018 to 2019.
Of the core science subjects, chemistry has the highest pass
rate at 76.9%, followed by physics at 74.6% and biology at
70.5%. Maths has a much lower pass rate at 65.5%. Pass rates
in these subjects remained largely stable from the 2017 to
2018 academic year, with the exception of biology which saw a
decrease of 2.4 percentage points.
Other STEM subjects saw large year-on-year increases in pass
rates. For example, pass rates in practical electronics
increased by 16.2 percentage points in the academic year 2018
to 2019 to reach 86.6%. Similarly, pass rates in design and
manufacture increased by 13.8 percentage points to reach
70.4% and pass rates in engineering science rose by 6.0
percentage points to 83.8%.
Nevertheless, the general trend in pass rates in STEM subjects
over the last 4 years is one of decline. For example, pass rates
in computer science have dropped by 8.8 percentage points
and music technology by 9.0 percentage points. There have
been large decreases for fashion and textiles technology
(down 39.4 percentage points), design and manufacture (down
15.2 percentage points) and practical metalworking (down 11.3
percentage points).
Figure 2.14 Changes in National 5 pass rates over time in
selected STEM subjects (2014/15 to 2018/19) – Scotland
Pass rates in
2018/19 (%)
Change over
1 year (%p)
Change over
4 years (%p)
Administration and IT
78.7%
-1.3%p ▼
0.3%p ▲
Biology
70.5%
-2.4%p ▼
-0.2%p ▼
Chemistry
76.9%
-0.3%p ▼
4.4%p ▲
Computing science
74.7%
0.0%p
-8.8%p ▼
Design and
manufacture
70.4%
13.8%p ▲
-15.2%p ▼
Engineering science
83.8%
6.0%p ▲
-2.2%p ▼
Fashion and textile
technology
58.9%
-5.3%p ▼
-39.4%p ▼
Health and food
technology
74.3%
8.1%p ▲
-2.8%p ▼
Mathematics
65.5%
0.8%p ▲
3.7%p ▲
Music technology
85.0%
-0.2%p ▼
-9.0%p ▼
Physics
74.6%
-0.4%p ▼
-0.5%p ▼
Practical electronics
86.6%
16.2%p ▲
2.6%p ▲
Practical metalworking
82.6%
1.4%p ▲
-11.3%p ▼
Subject
Practical woodworking
86.0%
0.5%p ▲
-7.7%p ▼
All subjects
78.2%
0.7%p ▲
-1.6%p ▼
Inequalities in secondary STEM education in
England
Ensuring equal opportunities for all young people to study
STEM at secondary school is critical if we are to increase
the number and diversity of young people in engineering
educational pathways. However, there are clear disparities
in participation and attainment in STEM education among
underrepresented groups. Relative to their peers, young
people from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely
to underperform in school and opt out of taking
engineering facilitating subjects at GCSE and A level.
In the academic year 2016 to 2017, of those eligible for free
school meals (FSM), 44% achieved an A* to C grade in
GCSE maths compared with 71% of non-FSM students.
The respective figures for physics are 8% and 23%.2.56
The attainment gap is still apparent at A level but is
smaller, which may in part be due to low performing
students deciding not to continue to study these subjects.
Of those who sat an A level maths exam in 2017, 54% of
those eligible for FSM achieved an A* to B grade,
compared with 66% of those not eligible for FSM. The
corresponding figures for physics are 39% and 52%.
The GCSE choices a young person makes will determine
whether they can participate in engineering educational
pathways: for example, young people who study triple
science at GCSE are more likely to study physics A level.
However, most young people are not given the choice of
which GCSE science option to take and schools in
disadvantaged areas are less likely to be able to afford to
offer their pupils the choice of studying triple science at
GCSE. Half of schools in North Lincolnshire, a highly
deprived local authority, do not offer triple science,
whereas all schools do in the highly affluent South East of
England.2.57
Levels of choice of subjects at A level is also determined
by socio-economic factors, with 16 out of 20 local
authorities with the smallest range of subjects at A level
located in the most deprived 30% of areas in England.2.58
It’s clear that inequalities are ubiquitous in STEM
education and impact a young person’s chance of
progressing along engineering educational pathways. We
welcome greater effort within the educational and
engineering communities to address educational
inequalities in future.
Excerpt from EngineeringUK’s ‘Social mobility in engineering’ briefing
Source: SQA. ‘Attainment Statistics’ data, 2015 to 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A to C.
To view this table with pass rates from 2014/15, see Figure 2.14 in our Excel resource.
2.5 – STEM A levels in England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
A levels are a key point in educational pathways into
engineering careers as they are the main bridge between
compulsory and tertiary education. Participation and
attainment in STEM A levels enable young people to take
higher education engineering degree courses – the most
common academic route into engineering careers.
Good grades in A level STEM subjects are required for entry
into most engineering related degree courses. The most
popular engineering undergraduate courses require 3 A levels
at A/B grades, one of which usually has to be maths. Many
universities also ask for an A level in physics, although some
may accept qualifications in other STEM subjects, including
the other sciences, further maths, computer science or design
and technology.2.59
Research suggests that STEM A levels are beneficial in
widening job prospects and increasing earnings, even for
those who don’t continue on to higher education. A study by
London Economics found that for all individuals with A levels,
the earnings premium for 2 or more STEM A levels (out of a
total of 3 or more A levels) is 13.1% relative to people whose
highest qualifications are GCSEs or O levels. For one STEM A
level it’s 5.9% and for no STEM A levels it’s 4.8%.2.60
Figure 2.16 shows that there were considerable increases in A
level entries for some STEM subjects in the 2018 to 2019
academic year: for example chemistry entries increased by
9.2%, biology by 8.4% and physics by 3.0%. There was also a
substantial increase in entries for computer science, at 8.1%.
Worryingly, there were significant decreases in entries for other
STEM subjects in 2018 to 2019, including further maths (down
10.1%), maths (down 5.9%) and design and technology (down
5.0%). The take-up of maths subjects at A level may have
decreased following the introduction of a harder and more
content heavy GCSE syllabus.2.61
Over 5 years, computing entries increased by a striking 116.7%,
whereas entries for ICT decreased by 83.4%. This can be
explained by the introduction of the new computing A level in
2013 to 2014 and the phasing out of the ICT A level, which is no
longer an option in the academic year 2019 to 2020.
Design and technology A level has seen a substantial decrease
in entries of 20.6% over 5 years, continuing a long-term pattern
of decline (see window box on page 45 for further discussion
on this topic).
Figure 2.16 Changes in A level entries over time in selected
STEM subjects (2013/14 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
STEM A level entries
Subject
STEM subjects comprised 4 of the top 10 most popular A
levels in England, Wales and Northern Ireland in the academic
year 2018 to 2019, based on number of entries (Figure 2.15).
Maths tops the A level leader board with 11.5% of total A level
entries, biology is in second position with 8.6% and chemistry
remains in fourth place with 7.4%. Physics continues to be the
least popular single science subject, ranking eighth of the 10
most popular A level subjects and comprising just 4.9% of total
entries.
Figure 2.15 Top 10 STEM A level subjects ranked by number
of entries (2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Ranking Subject
Percentage
of total
Number of
entries
11.5%
91,895
8.6%
69,196
1
Mathematics
2
Biology
3
Psychology
8.1%
64,598
4
Chemistry
7.4%
59,090
5
History
6.4%
51,438
6
Art and design subjects
5.3%
42,307
7
English literature
5.1%
40,824
8
Physics
4.9%
38,958
9
Sociology
4.7%
38,015
10
Geography
4.4%
34,960
Biology
69,196
8.4% ▲
8.0% ▲
Chemistry
59,090
9.2% ▲
10.4% ▲
Computing
11,124
8.1% ▲
166.7% ▲
Design and technology
10,870
-5.0% ▼
-20.6% ▼
Further mathematics
14,527
-10.1% ▼
3.6% ▲
1,572
-72.1% ▼
-83.4% ▼
ICT
Mathematics
Other key engineering facilitating STEM subjects continue to
be less popular choices at A level, including further maths
(1.8% of entries), computing (1.4%) and design and technology
(1.4%).
Entries in Change over Change over
2018/19 (No.)
1 year (%) 5 years (%)
Other sciences
Physics
All subjects
91,895
-5.9% ▼
3.5% ▲
2,527
-6.8% ▼
-27.5% ▼
38,958
3.0% ▲
6.1% ▲
801,002
-1.3% ▼
-3.9% ▼
Source: JCQ. ‘GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer’ data, 2014 to 2019.
To view this table with entries from 2011/12 and the percentage of female entrants, see
Figure 2.16 in our Excel resource.
STEM A level entries by gender
Boys are still substantially more likely than girls to choose to
study A level STEM subjects that typically serve as entry
requirements for engineering-related higher education courses
– see Figure 2.17. These include physics (77.4% boys), design
and technology (68.2% boys), maths (61.3% boys) and further
maths (71.5% boys).
In 2018/19, entries into computer
science GCSE increased by 8.1%.
Source: JCQ. ‘GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer’ data, 2019.
To view this table with data from 2015/16, see Figure 2.15 in our Excel resource.
49
2.56 E
ngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
2.57 OPSN. ‘Lack of options: How a pupil’s academic choices are affected by where they live’, 2014.
2.58 Friedman, S. and Laurison, D. ‘The class ceiling : why it pays to be privileged’, Policy Press, 2019.
2.59 U
CAS. ‘Engineering and technology’ [online], accessed 20/04/2020.
2.60 London Economics. ‘The earnings and employment returns to A levels 2015.
2.61 FFT Education Datalab. ‘A-Level results 2019: The main trends in grades and entries’, 2019.
50
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
For the first time ever, in 2018 to 2019 girls outnumbered boys
across the core sciences (biology, chemistry and physics),
comprising 50.3% of entries. However, this overall figure was
driven largely by entries for biology, where girls accounted for
62.9%, and chemistry (53.7% girls). Girls are still considerably
under-represented in physics, for which they only made up
22.6% of entries. Encouragingly, in 2018 to 2019 there was an
11.2% increase in female entries for chemistry and an increase
of 4.9% in physics compared with the previous academic year.
The underrepresentation of girls is most stark in computing,
where only 13.3% of entries were from girls. Female entries
went up by 21.8% compared with 2017 to 2018, but as
computing is a new subject, this represents an increase of only
264 entrants.
When we look at entries over the longer term, there are signs
of movement towards greater gender parity in A level STEM
subjects. In all STEM subjects apart from 2 the proportion
of entrants who are female has increased over the past 5 years,
with notable increases in computing (up 5.7 percentage points)
and chemistry (up 5.4 percentage points). However, there is
a worrying drop in the proportion of girls taking design and
technology, with a fall of 9.1 percentage points over the past
5 years.
Figure 2.17 A level entries in selected STEM subjects by gender
(2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
37.1%
Biology 62.9%
46.3%
Chemistry 53.7%
Computing 13.3% 86.7%
Design and technology 31.8%
68.2%
ICT 36.3%
63.7%
Mathematics 38.7%
Mathematics (further) 28.5%
Physics 22.6%
Other sciences 30.0%
All subjects 55.0%
Female
the predicted ‘sawtooth effect’.2.62 Other STEM subjects that
also saw slight year-on-year declines in pass rates include
biology (down 2.5 percentage points), chemistry (down 2.1
percentage points) and further maths (down 1.4 percentage
points).
Figure 2.19 A level pass rates in selected STEM subjects by gender (2017/18 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Figure 2.18 Changes in A level pass rates over time in selected
STEM subjects (2013/14 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and
Northern Ireland
Subject
Biology
Subject
Pass rates
in 2018/19
Change over
1 year (%p)
Change over
5 years (%p)
Biology
67.3%
-2.5%p ▼
-4.7%p ▼
Chemistry
72.2%
-2.1%p ▼
-5.8%p ▼
Computing
63.3%
0.8%p ▲
2.0%p ▲
Design and technology
68.2%
0.2%p ▲
-0.6%p ▼
Chemistry
Computing
70.0%
45.0%
Male
Source: JCQ. 'GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer' data, 2019.
STEM A level attainment
Across all A level subjects, the proportion of entries resulting in
a pass grade (C or above) decreased from 77.0% in 2017 to
2018 to 75.8% in 2018 to 2019. This continues the slight
downward trend in A level passes which has been happening
since 2014 to 2015.
As can be seen in Figure 2.18, the A level STEM subjects with
the highest pass rates in 2018 to 2019 were further maths
(86.6%), maths (75.6%) and chemistry (72.2%). The STEM
subjects with the lowest pass rates were computing (63.3%),
ICT (66.7%) and biology (67.3%).
Change over 1 year in
numbers of students
obtaining A* to C (%)
Overall
69,196
67.3%
4.5% ▲
Male
25,641
65.5%
2.4% ▲
Female
43,555
68.3%
5.7% ▲
Overall
59,090
72.2%
6.1% ▲
Male
27,333
72.3%
2.9% ▲
Female
31,757
72.1%
9.1% ▲
Overall
11,124
63.3%
9.5% ▲
Male
9,649
63.4%
8.2% ▲
Female
1,475
63.1%
19.0% ▲
Overall
10,870
68.2%
-4.8% ▼
Further mathematics
86.6%
-1.4%p ▼
-1.2%p ▼
66.7%
10.5%p ▲
6.1%p ▲
Mathematics
75.6%
-5.2%p ▼
-4.9%p ▼
Male
7,415
65.6%
5.0% ▲
Physics
70.5%
0.4%p ▲
-1.7%p ▼
Female
3,455
73.9%
-18.9% ▼
All subjects
75.8%
-1.2%p ▼
-0.9%p ▼
Overall
14,527
86.6%
-11.5% ▼
Male
10,380
86.6%
-11.7% ▼
Design and technology
Further mathematics
Source: JCQ. ‘GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer’ data, 2014 to 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C.
To view this table from 2012/13, see Figure 2.18 in our Exel resource.
STEM A level attainment by gender
Across all subjects, girls and boys were equally likely to
achieve A* and A grades at A level in 2018 to 2019 (25.5% and
25.4% respectively). The gender attainment gap appears when
looking at A* to C pass rates, with girls outperforming boys –
the pass rate is 77.6% for girls compared with 73.7% for boys
(Figure 2.19).
ICT
Mathematics
Physics
71.5%
Percentage
A* to C
ICT
61.3%
77.4%
Gender
Entries in
2018/19 (No.)
Girls far outperform boys in design and
technology at A level: 73.9% of girls and
65.6% of boys attained A* to C grades.
In STEM A level subjects, girls were more likely than boys to
attain pass grades in biology, design and technology, maths
and physics, whereas boys performed better in chemistry and
computer science.
All subjects
Female
4,147
86.6%
-11.2% ▼
Overall
1,572
66.7%
-66.9% ▼
Male
1,001
62.9%
-69.1% ▼
Female
571
73.4%
-63.0% ▼
Overall
91,895
75.6%
-11.9% ▼
Male
56,290
75.5%
-10.7% ▼
Female
35,605
75.7%
-13.7% ▼
Overall
38,958
70.5%
3.6% ▲
Male
30,159
70.2%
3.4% ▲
Female
8,799
71.4%
4.8% ▲
Overall
801,002
75.8%
-2.9% ▼
Male
360,623
73.7%
-3.1% ▼
Female
440,379
77.6%
-2.7% ▼
Source: JCQ, ‘GCE A level & AS level Results Summer’ data, 2018 to 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C.
To view this table with percentages for A* to A and from 2011/12, see Figure 2.19 in our Excel resource.
For most STEM subjects, the gender difference in pass rates is
small, but there are large gender attainment gaps for some.
ICT has the largest gender difference, with 73.4% of girls and
62.9% of boys achieving passing grades, a 10.5 percentage
points difference. Girls also far outperform boys in design and
technology, with 73.9% of girls and 65.6% of boys attaining A*
to C grades, an 8.3 percentage points difference.
There was a large decrease in the pass rate for maths A level in
2018 to 2019, with a drop of 5.2 percentage points compared
with 2017 to 2018. This may have been a result of the
introduction of the new harder A level maths curriculum and
2.62 T
he ‘sawtooth effect’ is a pattern of change caused by assessment reform. Specifically, performance in high stakes assessments is often adversely affected when that
assessment undergoes reform, followed by improving performance over time as students and teachers gain familiarity with the new test.
51
52
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
National and regional trends in STEM A level attainment
Students in Northern Ireland consistently outperform their
English and Welsh counterparts when it comes to STEM A level
results, just as they do at GCSE. For physics, the A* to C pass
rate in Northern Ireland was 80.6%, compared with 74.2% in
Wales and 70.0% in England.2.63 Similarly, for mathematics the
pass rate in Northern Ireland is far higher at 89.0% than in
Wales (76.6%) or England (75.1%). However, any comparisons
between UK nations must be made with caution, because the
devolution of secondary education policy means that the
attainment statistics are not directly comparable.
Figure 2.20 shows the variation in A* to C pass rates across all
A level subjects by nation and English region. In England, the
South East has the highest pass rate at 78.0%, followed by the
North East with 76.3%. The West Midlands and Yorkshire and
Humber had the lowest A* to C pass grades at 72.8% and 74.7%
respectively.
Figure 2.20 Changes in A level pass rates over time by nation
and region (2014/15 to 2018/19) – England, Wales and Northern
Ireland
Pass rates in
2018/19 (%)
Change over
1 year (%p)
Change over
4 years (%p)
75.5%
-1.3%p ▼
-1.0%p ▼
North East
76.3%
-0.5%p ▼
0.1%p ▲
North West
75.6%
-1.5%p ▼
-1.5%p ▼
Yorkshire and
the Humber
74.7%
-0.7%p ▼
-0.2%p ▼
Nation/region
England
West Midlands
72.8%
-0.5%p ▼
-2.9%p ▼
East Midlands
73.0%
-1.7%p ▼
-1.0%p ▼
Eastern Region
75.7%
-1.5%p ▼
-2.4%p ▼
South West
76.0%
-1.6%p ▼
-2.7%p ▼
South East
78.0%
-0.7%p ▼
-1.2%p ▼
London
74.8%
-2.2%p ▼
-2.5%p ▼
Wales
76.3%
0.0%p
1.1%p ▲
Northern Ireland
84.8%
0.3%p ▲
1.1%p ▲
All nations
75.8%
-1.2%p ▼
-0.9%p ▼
Source: JCQ. 'GCE Entry, gender and regional charts Summer 2019' data, 2015 and 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A* to C.
To view A level pass rates by nation and gender from 2014/15, see Figure 2.20a in our Excel
resource.
For STEM A levels, there are notable differences in pass rates at
county level in England with, for example, a 20 percentage point
difference in A level maths pass rates between the highest and
lowest performing counties in 2018 to 2019.2.64 Surrey had the
highest pass rate for maths (83.9%), closely followed by East
Sussex (83.5%) and Cornwall (81.6%). The county with lowest
pass rate for maths was Staffordshire (63.9%), followed by
Cumbria (65.0%) and Bedfordshire (65.5%).
For physics, the difference in pass rates between the highest
and lowest performing counties was larger, at 23.6 percentage
points.2.65 Again, Surrey had the highest pass rate (80.1%),
followed by Cornwall (77.5%) and Herefordshire (76.7%).
Staffordshire also had the lowest pass rate for physics (56.5%),
followed by Isle of Wight (57.9%) and Northamptonshire (58.5%).
When it comes to the top grades at A level, a student’s chances
of attaining an A or A* grade are typically higher the further
south they live. In London and the South East, 30% of pupils
attained an A grade in at least one A level compared with 20% in
the North East. Although there is no conclusive explanation for
this regional difference in exam performance, one possible
reason is there are a higher number of selective and
independent schools in the south of England.2.66 However, some
northern regions are seeing large annual improvements in A
level results. In 2018 to 2019, the North East recorded the
highest improvement in A grades out of all English regions, with
an increase of 1.4%.
2.6 – STEM Highers and Advanced Highers in
Scotland
In Scotland, fifth and sixth year students (equivalent to years
12 and 13 in England) typically sit Higher and Advanced Higher
qualifications. Higher qualifications are broadly equivalent to
the legacy AS levels, whereas Advanced Highers are
considered slightly harder than A levels. Most Scottish
universities require students to have Higher qualifications to be
accepted on a course, whereas English universities require
Scottish students to have Advanced Highers. Higher and
Advanced Higher qualifications cover a wide range of subjects,
including academic and applied subjects, and are graded at
A to D.
In Scotland, some educational establishments give students
the option to take the Scottish Baccalaureate in Science. There
are 4 different baccalaureates, each of which involves studying
a group of coherent subjects. The science baccalaureate is a
2-year course that comprises a mandatory component in
maths (or mathematics of mechanics or statistics), plus one of
the following 2 options:
A to C pass rates in all STEM subjects, except for
administration and IT, went down compared with the previous
year. There were large decreases in fashion and textile
technology (down 7.2 percentage points) and design and
manufacture (down 6.9 percentage points). Computing
science and engineering science also saw notable decreases
in pass rates (down 4.8 and 4.1 percentage points
respectively).
Subject
There were large declines in entries for some STEM subjects
compared with 2017 to 2018: entries in fashion and textile
technology dropped by 41.9%, computing science by 21.2% and
design and manufacture by 20.3%. Promisingly, engineering
science saw a 9.5% increase in entries compared with 2017 to
2018, up from 1,014 to 1,110.2.67, 2.68
A to C pass rates across all Advanced Higher subjects
remained stable. Some STEM subjects saw very large year-onyear increases in pass rates. For example, engineering science
and design and manufacture increased by 15.5 and 10.8
percentage points respectively.
Entries in
2018/19 (No.)
Percentage
A to C grade
Number
A to C grade
Percentage
A grade
Number
A grade
3,770
78.4%
2,955
28.7%
1,081
7,685
72.7%
5,588
27.6%
2,124
Chemistry
10,047
75.5%
7,590
29.7%
2,985
Computing science
3,228
63.9%
2,064
23.2%
748
Design and manufacture
2,248
54.2%
1,219
11.8%
265
Engineering science
1,110
65.3%
725
26.7%
296
215
74.4%
160
8.8%
19
18,626
72.4%
13,481
32.9%
6,127
8,325
74.9%
6,239
28.7%
2,390
55,254
72.4%
40,021
29.0%
16,035
185,914
74.8%
138,972
28.3%
52,564
Percentage
A grade
Number
A grade
Fashion and textile technology
Mathematics
All subjects
STEM Higher qualifications
In 2018 to 2019, the number of entries into Higher
qualifications decreased by 3.1% compared with the previous
year. Of the STEM subjects, maths had the highest number of
entries (18,626), followed by chemistry (10,047) and physics
(8,325) (Figure 2.21).
The STEM subjects with the highest A to C pass rates were
engineering science (83.3%) followed by chemistry (82.2%)
and physics (78.6%). The STEM subjects with the lowest pass
rates were design and manufacture (64.6%), computing
science (65.5%) and biology (74.1%).
Biology
• 1 core and 1 broadening course, chosen from computer
science, design and manufacture, engineering science,
graphic communication, geography or psychology
Students are graded on each component of the course and
also receive either a pass or distinction grade on completion of
the baccalaureate.
Entries into Advanced Higher qualifications were down 3.6%
Figure 2.22 shows that in the 2018 to 2019 academic year
compared with the previous year. The most popular STEM
subjects for Advanced Highers, in terms of entries, were
mathematics (3,706), chemistry (2,452) and biology (2,314),
with physics in fourth place (1,646).
Administration and IT
Physics
Students also have to produce an interdisciplinary project,
which aims to add breadth and value, and equip students with
the skills and confidence needed for the move into higher
education.
STEM Advanced Higher qualifications
Figure 2.21 Higher qualification attainment by selected STEM subjects (2018/19) – Scotland
• 2
core courses, which include biology, chemistry,
environmental science, human biology or physics
2.63 J
CQ. ‘GCE A Level & GCE AS Level Results Summer 2019’, 2019.
2.64 O
fqual. ‘Map of A level grade outcomes by county in England’ [online], accessed 21/04/2020.
2.65 Ibid.
2.66 G
ill, T. and Bell, J. F. ‘What Factors Determine the Uptake of A-level Physics?’, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2013.
2.67 SQA. ‘Attainment Statistics (August) 2019’, 2019.
2.68 SQA. ‘Attainment Statistics (August) 2018’, 2018.
53
The proportion of entries resulting in A to C grades in 2018 to
2019 across all Higher subjects stands at 74.8%, a slight
decline on 2017 to 2018 when it was 76.8%. The STEM
subjects with the highest pass rates in 2018 to 2019 were
administration and IT (78.4%), chemistry (75.5%) and physics
(74.9%). The STEM subjects with the lowest pass rates were
design and manufacture (54.2%), computing science (63.9%)
and engineering science (65.3%).
All selected STEM subjects
Source: SQA, ‘Attainment Statistics’ data, 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A to C.
To view this table with attainment from 2014/15, see Figure 2.21a in our Excel resource.
Figure 2.22 Advanced Higher qualification attainment in selected STEM subjects (2018/19) – Scotland
Subject
Entries in
2018/19 (No.)
Percentage
A to C grade
Number
A to C grade
Biology
2,314
74.1%
1,715
24.6%
569
Chemistry
2,452
82.2%
2,016
33.8%
828
614
65.5%
402
24.1%
148
79
64.6%
51
7.6%
6
Engineering science
36
83.3%
30
25.0%
9
Health and food technology
22
77.3%
17
4.5%
1
3,706
75.4%
2,795
37.2%
1,379
294
76.9%
226
40.8%
120
Computing science
Design and manufacture
Mathematics
Mathematics of mechanics
Physics
1,646
78.6%
1,293
31.5%
518
All selected STEM subjects
11,163
76.5%
8,545
32.1%
3,578
All subjects
23,460
79.4%
18,627
31.8%
7,458
Source: SQA. ‘Attainment Statistics’ data, 2019.
A pass grade is considered as A to C.
To view this table with attainment from 2015/16, see Figure 2.22a in our Excel resource.
54
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
2.7 – STEM teacher shortages
Teacher shortages follow a socio-economic gradient, with
schools in the most disadvantaged areas reporting the highest
number of vacancies and positions filled by temporary staff.2.73
Outside London, around 29% of secondary schools in the most
disadvantaged areas reported teaching vacancies or
temporarily-filled roles compared with 22% in the most
advantaged areas – a 7 percentage points difference. Within
London, the socio-economic gradient is much larger, with 46%
of schools in the most disadvantaged areas reporting
vacancies compared with 26% of schools in the most
advantaged areas – a 20 percentage points gap. It is therefore
important that teacher retention and recruitment initiatives
consider the influence of disadvantage on teacher shortages
and focus on the areas that are most in need.
The UK secondary education sector faces a longstanding
issue of teacher shortages. Data from the 2018 School
Workforce Census shows that the number of teachers in state
secondary schools in England has been falling since 2012,
whereas pupil numbers have been growing.2.69 As a result,
pupil-teacher ratios (PTR) in England rose to 16.3 in 2018,
continuing an upward trend since 2011 (Figure 2.23).
There is considerable variation in PTR across the UK. Wales
has the highest PTR, at 17.0 pupils for every teacher,2.70
whereas Northern Ireland has a lower PTR at 15.7 2.71 and
Scotland has the lowest PTR at 12.4.2.72
Figure 2.23 Pupil-teacher ratios in state funded secondary
schools (2011 to 2018) – England
14.9
2011
14.9
2012
15.0
2013
15.0
2014
15.3
2015
16.0
15.6
2016
2017
Teacher vacancies by subject
16.3
As can be seen in Figure 2.24, teacher vacancies are most
acute for STEM subjects. The STEM subjects with the highest
teacher vacancy rates in 2018 were information technology
and science, both with 1.6 vacancies for every 100 filled roles,
followed by mathematics and design and technology, which
each have 1.2 vacancies for every 100 filled roles.2.74 This
compares with an average vacancy rate of 1.0 per 100 filled
roles across all subjects and as low as 0.4 to 0.5 per 100 filled
roles for non-STEM subjects, including drama, PE, the arts and
history. It should be noted, however, that vacancy statistics are
unlikely to fully reflect recruitment difficulties, in part because
they are collected in November when vacancy rates are
comparatively low.
2018
Source: DfE. ‘School Workforce Census’ data, 2011 to 2018.
The pupil-teacher ratio is calculated by dividing the total full time equivalent (FTE) number of
pupils on roll in schools by the total FTE number of qualified and unqualified teachers regularly
employed in schools.
To view the number of secondary school STEM teachers for England, Scotland and Wales, see
Figure 2.23a-c in our Excel resource. Subject level data is not available for Northern Ireland.
STEM teacher supply
STEM teacher specialism
The Teacher Supply Model (TSM) is used to predict the
number of postgraduate Initial Teacher Training (ITT) places
that need to be filled to provide enough qualified teachers for
the state funded school sector in England. According to the
model, ITT targets have not been reached since 2011 to
2012.2.75 The state secondary school sector currently requires
20,087 entrants into ITT in 2019 to 2020 in order to reach ITT
targets, though provisional data suggests that just 85.1% of
this target has been achieved.2.76
A teacher is considered a subject specialist if they have a
relevant post-A level qualification in the subject they teach.
Although a degree may not be necessary to be a good teacher,
evidence suggests that it is a good predictor of teacher quality,
particularly in maths and sciences.2.77 Analysis conducted by
the DfE found a positive association between specialist
teaching in maths and student attainment in the subject at the
end of key stage 4 in England.2.78
Figure 2.26 shows that teacher specialism rates vary widely
between STEM subjects in England. For example, biology,
where there is no shortage of teachers, has a very high
specialism rate (89.6%) compared with chemistry (72.3%) and
physics, which has the lowest specialism rate of the science
subjects (62.7%). Engineering has the lowest level of teacher
specialism of any STEM subject, with only 17.5% of engineering
teachers having relevant post A-level qualifications. Teacher
specialism is also a concern in computing, where just 36.0% of
teachers have relevant qualifications.2.79
Figure 2.25 shows that ITT recruitment targets weren’t met in
any STEM subjects in the academic year 2018 to 2019, except
for biology, which was at 153.1% of the target. The subjects
furthest from meeting their recruitment targets were design
and technology, where only one quarter (25.6%) of the target
was achieved, and physics, where less than half (47.5%) of the
target was achieved. The provisional data for 2019 to 2020
suggests that recruitment of STEM teacher trainees is still a
problem.
There is a clear socio-economic gradient when it comes to
access to subject specialist teaching in STEM subjects across
England. Research by the Education Policy Institute found an
11 percentage points gap between the most deprived and least
deprived areas in London in terms of the proportion (45%
compared to 56%) of maths teaching hours being taught by a
subject specialist.2.80 Outside London this gap increases to 14
percentage points, with 51% of maths teaching hours taught by
subject specialists in the least deprived areas, compared with
only 37% in the most deprived areas.
In 2018, no ITT recruitment targets were
met for any STEM subjects except for
biology. The subjects furthest from
meeting their targets were design and
technology and physics.
For physics, the socio-economic gradient outside London is
more extreme, with 52% of physics teaching hours taught by
subject specialists in the least deprived areas, compared with
just 17% in the most deprived areas – a 35 percentage points
gap. This highlights the need to hire more specialist STEM
teachers in deprived areas, particularly in physics.
Figure 2.24 Teacher vacancy rates in state funded secondary schools by subject taught (2013 to 2018) – England
Main subject taught
Information technology
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.6
All sciences
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.6
1.5
1.6
Commercial/business studies
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.1
1.6
Mathematics
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.2
Design and technology
0.6
1.1
0.9
2.1
1.2
1.2
English
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.1
Computing
–
–
–
–
1.2
0.9
Geography
0.6
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.9
Music
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
Languages
0.3
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
Social sciences
0.7
1.4
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
Religious education
0.7
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.6
History
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
Art/craft/design
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
Physical education/sport/dance
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
Drama
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
All subjects
0.8
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
Source: DfE, ‘School workforce census’ data, 2013 to 2018.
Teachers in post include full-time qualified regular teachers in (or on secondment from) state funded secondary schools. Figures on vacancies in computing were available for the first time in
2017. Prior to this, vacancies in computing were included under ICT. Figures for ICT are therefore not comparable with earlier years. ‘All sciences’ includes physics, chemistry and biology, plus
other and general science. ‘-’ denotes no value available.
To view this table with number of vacancies and data from 2010, see Figure 2.24 in our Excel resource.
2.69 D
fE. ‘School Workforce in England: November 2018’, 2019.
2.70 Statistics for Wales. ‘Schools’ Census Results: as at January 2019’, 2019.
2.71 Education NI. ‘Teacher workforce statistics 2018/19’, 2019.
2.72 Scottish Government. ‘Summary statistics for schools in Scotland’, 2019.
2.73 Education Policy Institute. ‘Teacher shortages in England: analysis and pay options’, 2020.
2.74 DfE. ‘School Workforce in England: November 2018’, 2019.
55
Figure 2.25 Teacher Supply Model targets for state funded secondary schools by selected STEM subjects
(2018/19 and 2019/20) – England
2018/19 (revised)
Subject
Computing
2019/20 (provisional)
Target
Recruited
Contribution to
target (%)
Target
Recruited
Contribution to
target (%)
723
540
74.7%
631
498
78.9%
Design and technology
1,167
299
25.6%
1,022
418
40.9%
Mathematics
3,116
2,174
69.8%
3,343
2,145
64.2%
Total science, of which:
3,460
3,236
93.5%
3,609
3,324
92.1%
Biology
1,188
1,819
153.1%
1,192
1,973
165.5%
Chemistry
1,053
838
79.6%
1,152
804
69.8%
Physics
1,219
579
47.5%
1,265
547
43.2%
19,674
16,327
83.0%
20,087
17,098
85.1%
Total secondary
Source: DfE. ‘Initial teacher training: trainee number census 2019 to 2020’ data, 2019.
2.75 D
fE. ‘Initial Teacher Training (ITT) Census for the academic year 2018 to 2019, England’, 2018.
2.76 DFE. ‘Main tables: initial teacher training trainee number census 2019 to 2020’, 2019.
2.77 Education Policy Institute. ‘The teacher labour market in England: shortages, subject expertise and incentives’, 2018.
2.78 DfE. ‘Specialist and non-specialist’ teaching in England: Extent and impact on pupil outcomes’, 2016.
2.79 CBI and Pearson. ‘Educating for the modern world CBI/Pearson education and skills annual report’, 2019.
2.80 E
ducation Policy Institute. ‘The teacher labour market in England: shortages, subject expertise and incentives’, 2018.
56
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
Figure 2.26 State funded secondary school teachers with no
relevant post-A level qualifications by selected STEM subjects
(2018) – England
Subject
No relevant
post-A level
qualification (%)
Engineering
82.5%
Computing
64.0%
ICT
47.8%
Physics
37.3%
Design and technology – electronics/systems
and control
31.5%
Design and technology – food technology
30.8%
Chemistry
27.7%
Design and technology – textiles
22.7%
Design and technology – graphics
22.4%
All design and technology
21.8%
Mathematics
21.7%
Design and technology – resistant materials
17.9%
Other/combined technology
16.8%
Combined/general science
10.5%
Biology
10.4%
English Baccalaureate
21.3%
Source: DfE. ‘School workforce census’ data, 2019.
To view this table by level of qualification, see Figure 2.26 in our Excel resource.
Factors influencing STEM teacher shortages
Secondary schools are struggling to attract and recruit STEM
teachers, in large part due to teaching salaries being
uncompetitive compared with the considerably higher salaries
offered by careers within industry.
As can be seen in Figure 2.27, STEM graduates tend to earn
more in professions outside teaching, whereas non-STEM
graduates with degrees in English, modern foreign languages,
history and PE tend to earn more within the teaching
profession. The largest pay difference is for physics graduates,
where non-teachers earn on average £6,400 more per year
than teachers. However, differences in pay may be due to the
type of people who choose to go into teaching, as well as being
due to the job itself.
STEM graduates tend to earn more in
professions outside teaching, whereas
non-STEM graduates with degrees in
English, modern foreign languages,
history and PE tend to earn more within
the teaching profession.
Figure 2.27 Comparison of teacher and non-teacher median
salaries by degree subject (2016) – England
Outside
pay ratio
Degree
subject
Median
salary of
teachers
Median
salary of
non-teachers
Difference
(for teachers)
>1
Physics
£31,600
£38,000
-£6,400
<1
Maths
£35,500
£40,000
-£4,500
All science
£32,000
£35,000
-£3,000
Biology
£31,000
£32,600
-£1,600
English
£28,000
£25,300
£2,700
Modern
languages
£31,200
£27,700
£3,500
History
£34,100
£29,400
£4,700
PE
£33,100
£25,000
£8,100
Source: Figure taken from Education Datalab. ‘Improving Science Teacher Retention: do
National STEM Learning Network professional development courses keep science teachers
in the classroom?’, 2017.
Outside pay ratio: If this is greater than one, graduates earn more outside teaching than
inside. If it is less than one, they earn more inside teaching than outside.
This table shows only selected subjects. Chemistry not shown due to small sample size.
Teaching salaries were affected by public sector pay freezes
between 2010 and 2013 and caps in pay increases between
2013 and 2018. During this time, teachers’ real average hourly
pay fell by 15%, which was more than other public sector
professions, including nursing and policing.2.81 The National
Union of Teachers (NUT) pay loss calculator found that
teachers were more than £5,000 a year worse off on average in
real terms compared with 2010 due to the pay freeze.2.82
In July 2019, the government announced a 2.75% uplift to
teachers’ pay ranges for the 2019 to 2020 academic year.2.83
Although this pay increase has been welcomed by the teaching
community, the National Education Union says it is not enough
to address the erosion of the value of teacher pay against
inflation and against earnings in the wider economy.2.84 The
government has also announced that it is committed to
increasing minimum teacher starting salaries to £30,000 by
September 2020. We welcome the government’s ambition as it
is crucial for the engineering sector that teaching STEM
subjects is considered a well-respected and well-paid career
option.
STEM teacher exit rates
STEM teachers have higher exit rates compared with other
subject teachers, both in terms of leaving their current job to
teach at another school and leaving the teaching profession
entirely. A report by Education Datalab shows that science
teachers are 26% more likely to leave their school and 5% more
likely to leave the teaching profession within 5 years than
similar non-science teachers.2.85
Exit rates are much higher for teachers early in their careers.
For newly qualified science teachers, the odds of leaving their
first school is 35% higher than newly qualified teachers in other
subjects and 20% higher for leaving the profession within the
first 5 years of teaching.2.86
2.81 N
FER. ‘Research Update 4: How Do Teachers Compare To Nurses And Police Officers’, 2018.
2.82 N
EU. ‘Pay loss calculator’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.83 D
fE. ‘School teachers’ pay to rise by 2.75% - GOV.UK’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.84 N
EU. ‘Pay advice’ [online], accessed 24/03/20.
2.85 F
FT Education Datalab. ‘Improving Science Teacher Retention: do National STEM Learning Network professional development courses keep science teachers in the classroom?’,
2017.
2.86 Ibid.
57
Among newly qualified science teachers, those with a physics
or engineering degree are most likely to leave the profession.
The odds of this sub-group leaving teaching within their first 5
years is 29% higher than for non-science newly qualified
teachers.2.87 The problem is compounded by the fact that there
is high demand for graduates in these degree subjects in both
teaching and other sectors. They are therefore more likely to
find jobs with more competitive pay than graduates with
degrees in other subjects.
Some of the reasons why STEM teachers are leaving teaching
are common across the teaching profession generally. A
survey of 1,200 current and former teachers by the UCL
Institute of Education found that the top reasons given for
leaving teaching were:2.88
• to improve work life balance (75%)
• workload (71%)
• target driven culture (57%)
• teaching making me ill (51%)
• government initiatives (43%)
• lack of support from management (38%)
Science teachers often have higher workloads than other
subject teachers as they are more likely to teach more than one
subject: for example they may be required to teach biology,
physics and chemistry. This means that they are also more
likely to be teaching subjects outside the comfort zone of their
specialist subject, adding to work stress. Research has found
that teachers who teach multiple subjects are more likely to
leave their school.2.89
Government initiatives to address the STEM teacher
shortage
In 2019, the DfE announced a new strategy for recruiting and
retaining teachers in state-funded schools. The aim of the
strategy is to make teaching an attractive, rewarding and
sustainable career option.2.90
The strategy focuses on 4 key areas:
• e
stablishing more supportive school cultures and reducing
teacher workload
• transforming support for early years teachers
• e
nsuring teaching remains an attractive career as lifestyles
and aspirations change
• making it easier for people to become teachers
The proposed initiatives to meet these challenges include:
• s
implifying the accountability system to reduce unnecessary
workload
• t ransforming support for early years teachers via the Early
Careers Framework
Postgraduate trainees looking to teach
physics, maths, chemistry and
computing in 2020 to 2021 are eligible
for a scholarship of £28,000 or a bursary
of £26,000.
The government’s teacher recruitment and retention
strategy2.91 builds upon myriad retention and recruitment
initiatives designed to recruit additional teachers and
encourage teacher retention since 2015, many of which focus
on STEM subjects. A selection of the initiatives focusing on
recruiting, training and retaining STEM subject teachers are
outlined below.
Bursaries and scholarships
The government offers financial incentives to encourage
recruitment into initial teacher training in understaffed
subjects. In the academic year 2016 to 2017, 16,600 tax-fee
bursaries and 330 tax-free scholarships were awarded to
trainee teachers at a total cost of £191 million.2.92 Figure 2.28
shows that the level of bursary a trainee is eligible for depends
on the teaching subject. For the 2020 to 2021 initial teacher
training intake, postgraduate trainees looking to teach ‘priority
subjects’, including physics, maths, chemistry and computing,
are eligible for a scholarship of £28,000 or a bursary of
£26,000. Financial support for ‘non-priority’ subjects is lower:
for example, the bursaries for art and design, history, music
and religious studies are £9,000.2.93
Figure 2.28 Scholarships and bursaries available to trainee
teachers by subject taught (2020/21) – England
Subject taught
Chemistry, computing, languages,
mathematics and physics
Biology and classics
Geography
Scholarship
Bursary
(Trainee with
1st, 2:1, 2:2,
PhD or Master’s)
£28,000
£26,000
–
£26,000
£17,000
£15,000
Design and technology,
engineering
–
£15,000
English
–
£12,000
Art and design, business studies,
history, music and religious
education
–
£9,000
Source: DfE. ‘Initial teacher training bursary funding manual: 2020 to 2021 academic year’,
2019.
‘–’ denotes no scholarship available.
• encouraging flexible working and job share options
• introducing specialist qualifications for teachers who do not
want to go down a leadership route
• i ntroducing a one-stop application process for initial teacher
training
2.87 Ibid.
2.88 P
erryman, J. and Calvert, G. ‘What motivates people to teach, and why do they leave? Accountability, performativity and teacher retention’, Br. J. Educ. Stud., 2019.
2.89 D
onaldson, M. L. and Johnson, S. M. ‘The Price of Misassignment: The Role of Teaching Assignments in Teach For America Teachers’ Exit From Low-Income Schools and the
Teaching Profession’, Educ. Eval. Policy Analysis, 2010.
2.90 D
fE. ‘Teacher recruitment and retention strategy’, 2019.
2.91 H
ouse of Commons. ‘Teacher recruitment and retention in England’, 2019.
2.92 D
fE. ‘Funding: initial teacher training (ITT), academic year 2020 to 2021’, 2019.
2.93 Ibid.
58
2 – Secondary education
Early career payments
In addition to bursaries and scholarships, trainee maths,
physics and chemistry teachers going into state schools may
be eligible to receive early careers payments of up to £6,000
after tax, or £9,000 if they are teaching in listed local
authorities. Payments are made in instalments during the
first 5 years of their teaching career.2.94
Maths and physics teacher supply package
There is a targeted intervention to increase the supply of
maths and physics teachers and upskill current teachers.2.95
The support package targets different entry points into the
teaching pipeline including:
• p
aid internships for maths and physics undergraduates in
their final year of university to get experience of teaching
• M
aths and Physics Chairs programme for PhD researchers,
which recruits, trains and places candidates as teachers in
state schools, allows them to combine research and
teaching on an uplifted salary
• R
eturn to Teaching programme, which supports teachers
not currently active in the state school sector to return to
teaching
• t eacher subject specialism training targeted at nonspecialist maths and physics teachers and returning
teachers
TEM International teacher recruitment programme
S
The government aims to recruit maths and physics teachers
from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA into state
funded schools and academies.2.96 The DfE will fund
recruitment costs, acclimatisation packages and continuing
professional development (CPD) programmes during the first
year.
2 – Secondary education
STEM teacher retention and recruitment initiatives
Case study – National Centre for Computing
Education (NCCE)
Julia Adamson, Director of Education, BCS,
The Chartered Institute for IT
A high-quality computing education equips young people
with the knowledge, understanding and computational
thinking skills to thrive in our increasingly digital world.
Taking steps to improve the provision of computing
education is key to meeting the evolving needs of the UK
economy and its labour market.
In 2018, a consortium made up of STEM Learning, BCS,
The Chartered Institute for IT and the Raspberry Pi
Foundation established the National Centre for Computing
Education (NCCE). The 4-year programme was created
with government funding of £84 million, with the aim of
upskilling thousands of computing and computer science
teachers in England so that every child could benefit from
a world-leading computing education.
The NCCE website is an important resource for teachers,
where they can find tailored, region-specific information
on CPD opportunities and bursaries, and a complete
curriculum programme of training.
The NCCE is already seeing signs of success. The first
cohort of GCSE computer science teachers graduated
from the NCCE’s Computer Science Accelerator CPD
course, culminating in a wonderful celebration event at
Google HQ. Subsequent cohorts are currently participating
in a wide range of other subject knowledge CPD activities.
As of February 2020, 4,260 teachers had attended a range
of CPD courses. Almost 14,500 teachers have engaged
with the NCCE from almost 4,500 primary and 2,000
secondary schools.
Helen Brant, an NCCE graduate, successfully transitioned
from teaching music to teaching computer science. She
said: “There’s a definite correlation between learning an
instrument and learning how to programme. Both can be
frustrating, but very rewarding when you get them right.
There was a community of people on the course, all
starting from different levels. We shared feedback on each
other’s work and if I got stuck, there were a plethora of
resources that I could draw on. All the online courses were
free, and the face-to-face courses were bursarysupported, which covered my time out of the classroom.”
The NCCE is also receiving support from industry.
Employers have shown interest in providing sponsorship
for the NCCE, with over £1.5 million pledged to support
online courses and additional bursaries for teachers from
priority schools, as well as a wide range of pro bono
support.
The NCCE has come a long way since its launch in 2018
and although there are more challenges ahead, there is a
lot to be hopeful about in the near future!
Case study – Training a new generation
of teachers
Case study – Pathways into teaching
Richard Warenisca, Project Manager,
Future Teaching Scholars
Now Teach is an innovative education charity offering
experienced professionals from industry and business a
structured pathway into teaching and bespoke support to
help them thrive in the classroom for the long term. Set up in
2016 by Financial Times journalist Lucy Kellaway, Now Teach
has recruited more than 200 experienced ‘career changers’
into teaching, including CEOs, lawyers, hostage negotiators
and NASA scientists.
The Future Teaching Scholars programme was launched in
2015 as a unique approach to teacher training, with the aim
of bringing more exceptional maths and physics students
into the teaching profession. We need passionate and
brilliant teachers in order for us to develop the next
generation of engineers, scientists, innovators and
inventors.
Unlike other routes into teaching, this programme allows
students, who truly love their subject, to continue that
in-depth study on a full-time course at university while also
learning about teaching and undertaking practical in-school
experiences throughout their undergraduate study.
A Future Teaching Scholar is a special kind of maths and
physics graduate. They become subject specialists who
have taken part in a 3 year structured programme of
learning, delivered by outstanding Teaching Schools,
preparing them to teach. During their undergraduate years,
these students spend time in schools and have many
classroom experiences including teaching, team teaching
and lesson study, and spend time learning about creating
the conditions needed for high quality learning to take place.
Luke Berry is a Future Teaching Scholar from the first cohort.
“Experiencing the classroom from ‘the other side’ has been
pivotal on this programme– I never imagined how strange it
would be! However, it has been the perfect way to solidify my
career plans of becoming a teacher. From the teaching
experience so far, I am already beginning to see the rewards
and joys that teaching can bring, such as knowing that
you’ve helped at least one student to understand a topic
further and become more confident. Maths is such a broad
and interesting subject – the more people who can
experience this and find some enjoyment from it, the better!”
Case study – Researchers in Schools
Programme
Kikelomo Agunbiade, National Programme Director,
Researchers in Schools, The Brilliant Club
In England, it is estimated that schools require 1,000 new
physics teachers every year to keep up with demand. The
need for maths teachers is equally urgent. And demand for
teachers in these subjects is rising. The solution to this
problem is not only a matter of increasing the quantity of
teachers but also the level of subject expertise.
The Maths and Physics Chairs programme, delivered by
Researchers in Schools, aims to increase the number of
subject experts teaching in secondary schools across
England by delivering a training and development
programme exclusively for those with a PhD in their teaching
subject. The programme runs over a 3-year period, during
which participants achieve nationally recognised teaching
qualifications alongside our own tailored award, the
Research Leader in Education (RLE).
Clare Geldard, Executive Director, Now Teach
With this approach, Now Teach is not only addressing the
decline in numbers of teachers qualifying, but also giving
something new and valuable to schools. Even without a crisis
in teacher recruitment, we should be doing all we can to bring
people into the classroom who understand the world outside
education.
Among qualified teachers starting in schools this September
through Now Teach:
• 41% hold a Master’s degree and 13% hold a PhD
• 64% are teaching STEM subjects
• I n total they have over 1,800 years of combined career
experience in more than 25 industries
Our aim is to become a national movement and prove that
bringing different generations together for mutual benefit
helps eradicate inequality in education.
John Richardson, who began his career as a Civil Engineer
specialising in the design and construction of large-scale
foundations, is now retraining as a maths teacher. “I first
seriously considered teaching as a career at the age of 50
after completing 20 years with my employer. I wanted a
change, have always loved mathematics and wanted to give
something back. My advice to anyone thinking about this is
don’t be afraid of change or the challenge. Everyone I have
met is supportive and wants you to succeed, and every
trainee has applicable skills.”
The RLE includes a range of high-impact activities and
projects designed to use participants’ research skills and
subject expertise for the benefit of their schools.
Participants also benefit from one day a week off timetable
to focus on these additional activities, as well as honorary
academic status from a partner university and generous
funding options for their training year.
Since 2014, over 300 PhD scholars have taken part in our
programme and over 2,500 pupils have benefitted from one
of our main participant-led activities – Uni Pathways. This is
a series of university-style tutorials where participants aim
to increase subject knowledge by bringing their unique area
of study into the classroom. Through activities such as this,
the programme not only seeks to make an academic impact
but also a social one. In 2018 to 2019, 93% of Uni Pathways
pupils met our targeting criteria, meaning they came from
backgrounds underrepresented at highly selective
universities, helping to create not just a larger pipeline of
future mathematicians and physicists, but a fairer, more
diverse one too.
2.94 Ibid.
2.95 DfE. ‘Maths and physics teacher supply package: report’, 2017.
2.96 DfE. ‘Recruit a qualified maths or physics teacher from abroad’, 2019.
59
60
2 – Secondary education
2 – Secondary education
Towards a twenty-first century
education system
Great engineering requires more than just theory and
knowledge. We want our future engineers to be strong in head,
heart and hand. Of course, they need to understand the
essential and rich body of knowledge that underpins the
profession, but this is not sufficient. Whatever engineering
discipline they work in, we need them to be skilled makers, to
develop models and prototypes, to be excited by exploring
physical space and dimensions. We also want them to
understand people, to tackle global challenges, to live lives
focused on more than just economic gain and be creative as
they solve problems.
Engineering is by no means unique in this. Speaking to a
leading surgeon recently, Professor Roger Kneebone from
Imperial College, he explained that while he can pick from
thousands of applications of young people with strong
academic records, very few of them have the manual dexterity
and hand skills needed to succeed in the operating theatre. He
has brought a lace maker into the College as an artist in
residence to help students to develop those hand skills that
they have lacked in earlier phases of their education.
Across sectors, employers are looking
for a mix of skills and behaviours:
technical, practical and people skills.
Going wider, our analysis of the skills needed in the economy
and the future of work suggests that employers across sectors
are crying out for this broader mix of skills and behaviours.
CBI/Pearson’s Educating the Modern World shows that over
half of employers (60%) value broader skills such as problem
solving and three quarters (75%) say they prefer a mix of
academic and technical qualifications. The DfE’s own
Employer Skills Survey 2017 showed that two particular
themes emerged when employers were asked about skills
shortages – technical and practical skills, and people skills. In
our increasingly global labour market, this is not unique to the
UK, LinkedIn’s Global Talent Trends 2019 found that 92% of
employers felt so-called ‘soft skills’ are equally or more
important than hard skills, with creativity highlighted as of
particular value.
As the evidence set out in this chapter shows, despite the
amazing hard work of teachers and staff around the country,
the schools policy in England is not cultivating the right
behaviours to deliver what is needed. EBacc and Progress 8
are pushing out the technical and creative subjects that are
best placed to deliver this broader range of skills, like design
and technology and art. Even entries in computing subjects are
61
pitifully small given that we are going through the digital
revolution. In other subjects, the constant focus on
‘knowledge-rich’ curriculum simply means more rote learning
and fewer opportunities for things like practical
experimentation in science that can help to develop the hand
as well as the head. While T-Levels may be a helpful
development, the planned removal of standalone vocational
qualifications will give fewer young people the opportunity for
blended learning rather than having to choose between a
wholly academic or vocational curriculum.
The picture is much more positive outside England. The
broader Curriculum for Excellence in Scotland and the strong
focus on Developing Young Workforce gives room for schools
to prioritise developing rounded future workers and citizens.
The excellent Foundation Apprenticeships programme is a
model that England and others should follow, allowing young
people to take a subject like Engineering alongside their
Scottish Highers, which is recognised by both Universities and
Apprenticeship providers, creating a no-wrong-door approach.
In Wales we have strongly welcomed the recent
announcements on curriculum development which place a
genuine focus on breadth and balance, with subjects working
together holistically.
As we proceed through the fourth industrial revolution, rote
learning is not the future of education – in engineering or any
other discipline. There is another way.
In School 21 in East London, they use project-based learning to
set real world challenges for their pupils, who work together in
teams to address them. Meanwhile, they call employer
engagement their ‘ninth GCSE’ devoting the resources and
curriculum time of a subject to giving every student a rich
experience of Real-World Learning. Every Year 10 and Year 12
spends half a day a week out in a business or organisation
working on a real project.
Meanwhile, XP School in Doncaster blends together subjects
in either STEM or humanities, breaking down boundaries to
offer students the chance to work on rich and deep projects
with an engaging guiding question and a clear and public
finished product. Students look at ‘who speaks for the trees?’
or ‘what did the railways do for Doncaster?’ developing
research, teamworking and problem-solving skills and creating
finished products from wall murals to books published and
available in the local Waterstones.
Both schools have good GCSE results. Both schools are rated
Outstanding by Ofsted. This is not an either or – we can give
young people access to the rich body of knowledge whilst also
helping them to develop the skills and behaviours they will
need as professionals and as adults. We can have heart and
hand as well as head.
To support students in gaining the
transferable skills demanded by
employers, successful educational
institutions worldwide are focusing on
cross-curricular projects.
The principles that underpin XP and School 21 are common to
more than 15 world leading models that Edge has been
working with to make education relevant for the twenty-first
century. From High Tech High in San Diego to the Academies
of Nashville or the Finnish College system, successful schools
and colleges worldwide are focusing on cross-curricular
projects that help to give students the transferable skills that
employers are demanding. They are creating rich and deep
opportunities for engagement with employers and community
organisations to set real world challenges, guide students and
act as an authentic audience for their end products. Above all,
they are recognising that exam results are not everything and
judging themselves on their students’ holistic development
and on their destinations.
This is the approach that we need to create the successful
engineers of the future.
Schools in England already have the freedom to transform their
own curriculum and pedagogy to a large extent, and the new
Ofsted Framework encourages this behaviour. We are working
with seven schools and colleges in the North East of England,
and in partnership with the Wood Foundation with four schools
in the North East of Scotland to develop and embed these
practices, making education more relevant and engaging for
pupils and teachers alike.
To go further, education policy must change so that every
school and college is incentivised to focus on head, heart and
hand. The EBacc in England would benefit from a more broad
and balanced curriculum building on what is already in place in
Scotland, what is being introduced in Wales and what is
recognised internationally through the IB. Performance tables
should be changed to reflect this, focusing on breadth, on the
development of wider skills and on destinations. The tone of
inspection policy should be on collaborative improvement not
heavy-handed judgement, with Ofsted continuing to move in
its current direction of valuing curriculum development. Finally,
there should be opportunities at every stage for curriculum
blending, offering young people a rich mix of subjects and
approaches that crosses the academic-vocational divide.
60%
of employers value broader
skills such as problem solving.
75%
of employers say they prefer a
mix of academic and technical
qualifications.
92%
of employers feel that 'softskills' are equally or more
important than hard skills.
Olly Newton
Executive Director,
The Edge Foundation
62
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
74%
of further education college
principals said engineering
and manufacturing was the
most difficult subject to recruit
teachers for.
Key points
The UK’s further education (FE) sector is rapidly changing,
with a funding boost for ‘high value’ courses, the shift to
apprenticeship standards and new qualifications and institutes
of technology. In such a changing landscape, it is critical for the
engineering sector not to lose its focus on addressing longstanding issues of STEM teacher shortages and the lack of
diversity among apprentices.
T levels
In September 2020, students will be able to enrol on the first T
level qualifications in construction, digital, and education routes,
which will include an extended industry placement with relevant
employers. The engineering and manufacturing T level will be
available to students as of September 2022.
Overall, both T level providers and employers are supportive of
and welcome the new T level qualifications. They particularly
appreciate the emphasis placed on attaining broad industry
knowledge, which engineering employers believe will provide an
alternative to the ‘deep, specialist’ knowledge that an
apprenticeship offers. There are, however, some concerns. Both
providers and employers suggest that there may be sectorspecific barriers to young people completing an industry
placement in the engineering and manufacturing, and
construction routes.
Teaching in the FE sector
FE colleges have reported they struggle to attract sufficiently
qualified engineering teachers, with 74% of college principals
ranking it as the subject most difficult to recruit for. With the
introduction of T levels, there will be significant additional
demand placed on FE teachers. This problem is particularly
acute in the engineering sector, where the need to have industry
experience means that providers are competing directly with
engineering employers, which offer potentially higher salaries. In
order to address FE teaching shortages, there are a range of
initiatives, including £26,000 training bursaries for prospective
engineering and manufacturing teachers.
Apprenticeship reforms
The apprenticeship levy came into full effect in April 2017. As of
2019, there were 227 apprenticeship standards approved for
delivery in engineering-related areas, and by August 2020, all
new apprenticeship starts must be on apprenticeship
standards.
Employers in the engineering sector have made several
criticisms of the levy. The main concerns relate to the rigidity of
Engineering-related
apprenticeships made up
26% of all apprenticeship
starts in 2018 to 2019.
the funds and there have been broad calls by industry to adapt
the levy into a wider ‘training levy’. Despite the necessity of, and
benefits associated with off-the-job training, some businesses
are confused about exactly what it entails and whether it is
appropriate for their apprentices.
Apprenticeship trends in England
In England, apprenticeship starts in the academic year 2018 to
2019 have increased by 4.7% compared with the year before.
However, they have decreased by 21.3% since 2014 to 2015, with
the largest drop observed immediately after the introduction of
the levy.
Engineering-related apprenticeships have followed a similar
pattern, with a small year-on-year increase (3.6%) in the
academic year 2018 to 2019, but an overall decrease of 4.1%
since 2014 to 2015. The smaller drop for engineering-related
areas means that their share of apprenticeship starts has risen
to 26.3% from 21.5% in 2014 to 2015.
The post-levy decrease varied by engineering-related subject
and level. Intermediate level apprenticeship starts fell across all
areas between the academic years 2014 to 2015 and 2018 to
2019. However, across all engineering-related areas, higher level
apprenticeship starts increased by 52.3% in 2018 to 2019
compared with the previous year, reflecting a wider trend
towards higher quality apprenticeships in all subjects.
Diversity among engineering-related apprentices in the UK
Women and people from minority ethnic backgrounds remain
severely underrepresented in engineering-related
apprenticeships. In 2018 to 2019, women made up low
proportions of starts in construction (6.4%), engineering and
manufacturing (7.9%) and ICT (19.8%) in England. Those from
minority ethnic backgrounds made up 5.4% of starts in
construction and 7.9% in engineering and manufacturing. In ICT,
on the other hand, they were overrepresented, with 19.1% of
starts.
In Scotland and Wales, engineering-related apprenticeships
represented 34.3% and 19.9% of all starts in 2018 to 2019,
respectively. Women comprised just 3.8% of those on
engineering-related apprenticeships in Scotland, a figure that
has not changed significantly in 5 years. By contrast, in Wales,
the proportion of women on engineering related apprenticeships
has increased each year since 2014 to 2015 and is now 7.5%. In
Northern Ireland, engineering related apprenticeships were
more popular, making up 61.4% of the total participants.
However, women were similarly underrepresented, making up
just 6.8% of all engineering-related participants.
3.1 – Context
Technical education, such as apprenticeships and training, is a
key route for many people to develop the skills necessary to enter
or progress in the engineering workforce.
Following the 2016 Sainsbury Review and subsequent Post-16
Skills Plan, a host of reforms have been introduced with the aim of
streamlining the number of qualifications on offer and improving
their quality. Ultimately, the goal is to create a technical education
system that is responsive to the changing skills needs of the
economy. These changes include the introduction of: the
apprenticeships levy and standards; the Institute for
Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE); Institutes of
Technology; and the forthcoming T levels. Given that the reforms
to further education have - for the most part - taken place in
England, with the Department for Education covering only English
education, this chapter will primarily cover the FE sector in
England. Section 3.8 contains context and analysis on
apprenticeships in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
With employers being asked to assist in the development and
delivery of these changes, such reforms offer a key opportunity
for engineering to shape a new technical education system that
Terminology
Terms such as ‘further education’, ‘technical education’ and
‘vocational education’ are often used interchangeably, which
can cause confusion. In this report, we define these as:
Further education (FE): Any study after secondary education
that is not part of higher education (that is, not taken as part
of an undergraduate or graduate degree) and is not delivered
in schools. This could include academic qualifications taken
outside a school setting.
The FE sector: Institutions and organisations that deliver any
kind of further education. This includes general FE colleges,
independent training providers, local authority providers,
employer providers and third sector providers.
Technical education: Any training, such as qualifications and
apprenticeships, that focuses on progression into skilled
employment and requires the acquisition of both a
substantial body of technical knowledge and a set of
practical skills valued by industry.3.1 This replaces what was
previously referred to as ‘vocational education’ – increasingly,
the UK government and others in the sector prefer the term
‘technical’ over ‘vocational’.
Technical education can be thought of as a sub-set of FE, as
the latter encompasses both technical courses, such as
diplomas in engineering, and non-technical courses, such as
English for speakers of other languages (ESOL), beginner
computer courses and cooking courses.
Vocational qualification: In this chapter, a vocational
qualification refers to a broad range of non-academic
qualifications, such as a diploma.
Technical qualifications is a term we use for a subset of
vocational qualifications in the context of a specific new
qualification, such as the T level or the higher technical
qualification.
can address the sector’s skills shortages. Critical to this will be
ensuring that the system adequately takes into account the often
unique and specific requirements of engineering (for example the
higher costs associated with training) as well as how to resolve
wider issues such as the lack of diversity within apprentices.
Currently, technical education is split into two main streams –
apprenticeships and other vocational qualifications.
• A
pprenticeships: The government defines an apprenticeship
as a job with a formal programme of training. At least 20% of
this training must be ‘off the job’, taking place during the
apprentice’s normal work hours to advance the knowledge,
skills and behaviours set out in the apprenticeship
agreement (that is, it is not training for the sole purpose of
enabling the apprentice to perform the work for which they
have been employed).3.2
• Vocational qualifications: Other vocational qualifications
are delivered primarily in education institutions, where
learners benefit from a mixture of theoretical and practical
learning, often including some form of work experience.
Technical education caters for a range of learners, including
those who are already employed and aiming to increase their
skill set or perhaps change careers, as well as young people
who have recently finished their compulsory secondary
education. In 2018 to 2019, just 24.8% of apprenticeship starts
were by those aged under 19, with 28.7% aged 19 to 24 and
46.5% aged 25 and over.3.3 The picture is similar for broader
further education and skills,3.4 with 60.6% aged 19 and over.3.5
However, as the focus of this report is the participation of
young people in pathways into engineering, in this chapter we
predominantly focus on the engineering options in technical
education for those aged 16 to 18.
Over the past 10 years, considerable efforts have been made to
review and overhaul the further education system, including:
• T
he Richard Review of Apprenticeships in 2012, which
called on the government to improve the quality of
apprenticeships and make them more attuned to the needs
of employers, paving the way for the introduction of
apprenticeship standards in 2013 and the 20% ‘off-the-job’
training requirement for apprenticeships.
• E
nglish apprenticeships: our 2020 vision – a 2015 plan put
forward by the then Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills to increase the quality and quantity of apprenticeships,
setting out wide-ranging reforms including the introduction
of the apprenticeship levy, with the goal of achieving 3
million apprenticeship starts by 2020.
• T
he Sainsbury independent review on technical education
in 2016, which highlighted that within the current system,
over 13,000 qualifications – often with ‘little value for either
individuals or employers’ – were available to 16 to 18 year
olds. Its recommendations have led to the creation of T
levels, a new technical qualification starting in September
2020.
• The Augar Review in 2019, an independent panel review of
post-18 education and funding. This included wide-ranging
proposals, such as ‘strengthening technical education’,
‘increasing opportunities for everyone’, ‘reforming and
refunding the FE college network’ and ‘improving the
apprenticeship offer’.
3.1 D fE. ‘Review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below in England: glossary of terms. Accompanying document for the government consultation on the review of qualifications at
level 3 and below in England’, 2019.
3.2 D fE. ‘Apprenticeships: Off the job training’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.3 D fE. ‘Further Education and skills January 2020’ data, 2020.
3.4 In this context, further education and skills is defined as non-apprenticeship learning taking part in non-school settings.
3.5 D fE. ‘FE and skills learner participation by provider, local authority, funding stream, learner and learning characteristics: 2018 to 2019’ data, 2020.
63
64
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
• T
he review of level 4 and 5 education, yet to be completed
but first announced in 2017 to examine Level 4 to 5
education, with a focus on how technical qualifications at
this level can best address the needs of learners and
employers. The Department for Education (DfE) launched a
proposal in 2019 detailing plans to align the new T level
qualifications with new level 4 and 5 (higher technical)
qualifications.
The government has given increasing prominence to technical
education and the role it can play in ensuring students have the
relevant skills to succeed in the workplace, particularly STEM
skills. Within its 2017 industrial strategy, for example, the
government pledged to:3.6
• e
stablish a technical education system that rivals the best in
the world to stand alongside our world-class higher
education system
• invest an additional £406 million in maths, digital and
technical education, helping to address the shortage of
STEM skills
• c
reate a new National Retraining Scheme that supports
people to re-skill, beginning with a £64 million investment for
digital and construction training
An additional £400 million of funding for 16 to 19 education
was announced by the government in November 2019. This
includes the introduction of a high value course premium
(HVCP) – further funding designed to encourage and support
the teaching of selected level 3 courses in subjects that lead to
higher salaries.3.7
Within these changes, the government has made clear its
intention to encourage more young people to undertake STEM
subjects – the majority of subjects eligible for the HVCP fall
into this category. Likewise, in recognition that they cost more
to deliver, 5 of the 6 subject areas that will receive an uplift in
their programme cost weightings (PCWs) in the academic year
2020 to 2021 are STEM: science, engineering, manufacturing
technologies, transportation operations and maintenance, and
building and construction.
This renewed investment in technical education, with a focus
on STEM, is encouraging. This is particularly so given that the
current system lags behind that of other countries in terms of
funding3.8, 3.9 and has seen a funding decline since 2011 to 2012
compared with other phases of education, especially higher
education.3.10 Only 8% of 14 to 18/19-year olds in the UK3.11
graduating from vocational programmes have completed an
engineering, manufacturing and construction qualification.
Not only does this place the UK far below the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) average of
34% and the EU23 average of 33% for the proportion of young
people on vocational courses doing these subjects, it also
means the UK ranks last.3.12, 3.13, 3.14
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
About the data
Due to the vast range of provider types, students and age
groups in UK further education (FE), collection and
analysis of related data is often complex.
For students in schools, data is collected via the ‘school
census’, whereas for those in the FE sector – including
both those on apprenticeships and those studying other
vocational qualifications – data is recorded in the
Individualised Learner Record (ILR).
DfE publishes a range of data releases using the ILR data,
and most of the analysis in this chapter comes from one of
3 associated DfE data collections:
• F
urther education and skills data – information on
learners, learning programmes and learner
achievement. This is used for headline measures across
the entire FE sector. Information for the 2018 to 2019
year was released in November 2019.
• A
pprenticeships and traineeships data – information
on the number of apprenticeship starts, achievements
and participation, and additional traineeship measures.
Most of the apprenticeship analysis in this chapter is
drawn from this data collection. Underneath each figure
is a detailed description of the DfE data table used. Full
data for the 2018 to 2019 academic year was released in
November 2019.
• N
ational achievement rates tables – apprenticeship,
education and training annual national achievement rate
tables (NARTs) are used for both apprenticeship and
non-apprenticeship achievement rates. Data for the
2018 to 2019 academic year was published in March
2020.
Other data sets are used, and where EngineeringUK has
analysed publicly available data the reference or source
will indicate this with the word ‘data’.
Given that reforms have been centred in England, this
chapter mainly focuses on analysis of English data, though
some discussion of the devolved nations is also provided.
3.2 – The further education landscape
As Figure 3.1 illustrates, the FE sector is vast. It comprises a
range of providers and serves a diverse student population.
Because this is based on DfE data and therefore only includes
those studying with publicly funded providers, not private sector
providers, the true number of learners is likely to be higher.
Adults studying within the FE sector outnumber young people.
Similarly, education and skills learners – which includes those
studying technical qualifications and other modes of study –
outnumber apprentices. However, as the focus of this report is
the participation of young people in pathways into engineering,
the analysis in this chapter predominantly focuses on the
engineering options in technical education for 16 to 18 year olds.
3.6 HM Government. ‘Industrial Strategy: building a Britain fit for the future’, 2017.
3.7 U K Government. ‘16 to 19 funding: programme cost weighting changes’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.8 O ECD. ‘Education at a glance 2019 - OECD indicators’, 2019.
3.9 T he United Kingdom ranks 22nd out of the 29 OECD countries for which data is available in terms of total expenditure on educational institutions per full-time equivalent student
relative to GDP per capita for upper secondary vocational programmes.
3.10 IFS. ‘Annual Report on Education Spending in England’, 2019.
3.11 T he International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) categories are used for international comparisons. In this scheme, upper secondary refers to 14 to 18/19 year olds,
not 16 to 18/19 year olds as in the UK.
3.12 O ECD. ‘Education at a glance 2019 - OECD indicators’, 2019.
3.13 T he OECD’s ranking of countries for the proportion of upper secondary graduates from vocational programmes who have completed an engineering, manufacturing and
construction qualification is based on available national data.
3.14 E U23 refers to the 23 EU member states that are in the OECD.
65
Figure 3.1 Learners in the FE sector by provider type and funding stream (2018/19) – England
Apprentices (all ages)
Provider type
16-18 Education and skills
No.
19+ Education and skills
%
No.
%
No.
%
General FE college
206,820
27.9%
470,830
66.7%
712,560
65.8%
Private sector public funded
441,210
59.4%
50,690
7.2%
198,460
18.3%
86,170
11.6%
46,700
6.6%
128,980
11.9%
Sixth form college
2,290
0.3%
118,260
16.8%
10,000
0.9%
Special colleges
6,130
0.8%
19,030
2.7%
33,420
3.1%
742,620
100.0%
705,510
100.0%
1,083,420
100.0%
Other public funded
All provider types
Source: DfE, ‘FE and skills learner participation by provider, local authority, funding stream, learner and learning characteristics: 2018 to 2019’ data, 2019.
The ‘Education and skills’ figures include those studying A levels and other academic qualifications in non-school settings. It is therefore not possible from this data to obtain a picture of
current students studying technical qualifications.
General FE college includes tertiary providers.
Private sector public funded includes private sector organisations (such as limited liability partnerships and private limited companies) that deliver FE training funded by the DfE. They are
sometimes called ‘independent training providers’.
Other public funded refers to local authorities (LAs) and HE providers.
Special colleges includes agriculture and horticulture, art design and performing arts, and Specialist designated college.
There are 2 main routes that 16 to 18 year olds can choose
from within the FE sector: academic – that is, A levels and/or
applied general qualifications3.15 – or technical, in the form of
either classroom based technical education (which often
includes a short work experience element) or an
apprenticeship. Currently, learners within the FE sector overall
predominantly pursue vocational qualifications (Figure 3.2).
Figure 3.2 Level 3 education and skills achievements among
16 to 18 year olds by provider type and qualification pathway
(2018/19) – England
General FE college
189,922
63,629
Sixth form college
45,238
94,868
Other public funded
24,507
38,771
Special colleges
7,475
349
Private sector public funded
4,448
In the future, the further education
landscape will be easier to navigate,
with clear vocational pathways into
engineering.
Changes to the further education landscape
Over recent years, this wide-ranging sector has experienced
significant policy changes, including dramatic changes to
apprenticeships, and an evolving relationship with
government. In one example, FE colleges were reclassified
twice in 3 years, changing from private to public sector
organisations and then being moved back to the private sector.
These changes had implications for FE colleges being able to
borrow money, as this was dependent on their status, and on
public sector debt. The reclassification also changed how
much control government had over individual FE colleges.3.16
Further changes are on the way with the imminent introduction
of T levels, a new qualification that will follow on from GCSEs
and be equivalent to 3 A levels. It is intended to create a
simplified and fit-for-purpose technical pathway that meets the
needs of industry and prepares students for work. Once
implemented, it is hoped there will be clear vocational
pathways into engineering, although some degree of flexibility
will remain, with learners able to transfer directly from one
stage to another without necessarily completing each
intermediary step (depicted in Figure 3.3 by the green arrows
between options).
0
Vocational qualification
A level or AS level
Source: DfE, 'National achievement rate tables 2018/19' data, 2020.
General FE college includes tertiary providers.
Private sector public funded includes private sector organisations (such as limited liability
partnerships and private limited companies) that deliver FE training funded by the DfE. They
are sometimes called 'independent training providers'.
Other public funded refers to local authorities (LAs) and HE providers.
Special colleges includes agriculture and horticulture, art design and performing arts, and
specialist designated college.
3.15 A pplied general qualifications are level 3 qualifications for post-16 students who want to continue their education through applied learning. These are normally BTEC or diploma
qualifications and allow students to apply their learning to a general job area such as law, or business.
3.16 ONS. ‘Reclassification of further education corporations and sixth form colleges in England’, 2012.
66
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.3 Qualification pathways into engineering
Masters in
engineering
Level 3
Degree level
apprenticeship
Engineering
degree
Level 4/5
Level 6
Level 7
A career in manufacturing and engineering/full time employment
Higher technical
qualification
Higher technical
apprenticeships
Achieved 144 UCAS points
A levels
T levels
Advanced apprenticeships
Achieved 5 grades 9 to 4 including English and maths
Intermediate
apprenticeships
Students aged 16
Academic pathways
Transition year to achieve
five grades 9 to 4 including
English and maths
Technical pathways
Source: Figure adapted from RaEng. 'Engineering skills for the future: The 2013 Perkins
review revisited', 2019.
This diagram represents typical pathways and qualification names in England. Scotland has a
different qualification level hierarchy (see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1), and Wales and Northern
Ireland have different naming conventions.
This figure does not show every possible pathway into the engineering sector, as it is
possible to transition between academic and technical pathways. This is intended to give
typical examples of the steps that students can take.
The different levels of qualification (on the left of Figure 3.3)
represent separate entry points into the engineering sector.
Those completing higher levels of qualifications can start at more
senior levels and in different types of roles to those who only
complete the lower levels.
People with level 3 qualifications tend to follow the ‘technician’
route in engineering, whereas those with degree (or higher)
qualifications are eligible to become incorporated or chartered
engineers, as outlined in the Engineering Council’s information on
professional registration.3.17 Level 4 and 5 qualifications are also
known as Higher National Certificates (HNCs) and Higher
National Diplomas (HNDs) respectively: these allow some degree
of flexibility when choosing career options. For more information
about qualification levels please see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1.
There is more detail on the different options later in this chapter,
but Figure 3.3 is a useful way to understand the options facing
future vocational engineering students. Learners are expected to
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
be able to move from T levels to apprenticeships and, in some
cases, on to academic pathways, if they want to do so. Those
students who have completed either a higher technical
qualification or higher level apprenticeship will often be able to
complete a degree level qualification in a reduced time frame,
which is one of the benefits of these lesser-known qualifications.
In the context of the so-called ‘policy churn’ within the FE sector,3.18
there are understandable concerns about what may happen should
T levels not be implemented properly. The Association of Colleges
(AoC), for example, has discussed the risk to the UK’s long-term
economic prosperity,3.19 while the Policy Exchange has cited the
importance of success given the failure of previous vocational
qualifications such as GNVQs and diplomas.3.20
The provider landscape is also experiencing significant changes,
with FE colleges being encouraged to merge in order to meet
government objectives around financial stability and institutional
deficits.3.21 These changes have caused concern, with a DfE
review into the effect of college mergers highlighting stakeholder
perception of there being “too much focus placed on financial
efficiency at the cost of other key sector issues such as
leadership, governance and learning provision”,3.22 into the effect
of college mergers highlighting stakeholder perception of there
being “too much focus placed on financial efficiency at the cost
of other key sector issues such as leadership, governance and
learning provision” and FE Week reporting the restructuring
process to be “complex, costly” and “shrouded in secrecy”.3.23
Given that this restructuring has coincided with key reforms to
qualifications and delivery, the FE sector is clearly at a crossroads.
Figure 3.4 Engineering-related vocational qualifications approved for funding by level (2019) – England
Sector subject area
Entry levels
Level 1
Level 1/2
Level 2
Level 3
Levels 4+
Total
Construction, planning and the built
environment
34
134
8
379
242
8
805
Engineering and manufacturing
technologies
28
122
18
528
470
27
1,193
Information and communication
technology
41
76
11
104
122
38
392
103
332
37
1,011
834
73
2,390
1,552
1,944
162
3,849
3,170
310
10,677
All engineering-related sector
subject areas
All sector subject areas
Source: ESFA. ‘List of qualifications approved for funding 14 to 19’ data, 2019.
Vocational qualifications are counted as any qualification type that is not one of the following: GCSE, AS, A level, advanced extension award, project or principal learning.
Figure 3.5 Engineering-related vocational achievements among 16 to 18 year olds in FE by provider type and level (2018/19) – England
Qualification level
Sector subject area
General FE college
There are 49 distinct awarding organisations offering
qualifications within the engineering and manufacturing sector
subject area alone. The DfE has assessed that this complex
situation has resulted in “qualifications with little currency in the
labour market” and “large numbers of young people enrolling on
courses, which do not help them succeed in the world of work”.3.26
One driving force behind the introduction of T levels, therefore, is
to dramatically reduce the number of both qualifications and
awarding organisations. Each T level pathway will replace an old
sector subject area, and will be represented by just one high
quality qualification. One awarding organisation will be granted
exclusive delivery rights for each available qualification.3.27
As Figure 3.5 shows, some engineering-related sector subject
areas are more likely to be studied at certain provider types than
others. In 2018 to 2019, for example, the vast majority of those
studying within either construction, planning and the built
environment or engineering and manufacturing technologies did
so in FE colleges, whereas provider types were much more varied
for ICT students.
67
37,448
1,178
_
_
81
Sixth form college
66
_
_
66
Other public funded
424
93
_
517
23,061
12,035
4,194
39,290
10,804
14,608
12,391
37,803
635
256
_
891
83
38
270
391
809
Sixth form college
32
152
625
Specialist college
149
207
65
421
11,703
15,261
13,351
40,315
24,158
All provider types
5,386
5,259
13,513
Private sector public funded
115
123
_
238
Other public funded
127
210
1,755
2,092
Sixth form college
_
753
3,967
4,720
Specialist college
_
_
_
_
General FE college
All provider types
General FE college
Private sector public funded
5,628
6,345
19,235
31,208
37,579
31,732
30,098
99,409
1,880
427
_
2,307
262
277
2,025
2,564
Sixth form college
98
905
4,592
5,595
Specialist college
573
300
65
938
Other public funded
All provider types
General FE college
Private sector public funded
40,392
33,641
36,780
110,813
148,283
124,707
189,922
462,912
29,703
11,624
4,448
45,775
Other public funded
3,128
3,391
24,507
31,026
Sixth form college
4,049
15,756
45,238
65,043
Specialist college
All provider types
3.17 Engineering Council. ‘Professional registration’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.18 Institute for Government. ‘All change: Why Britain is so prone to policy reinvention and what can be done about it’, 2017.
3.19 AoC. ‘T levels won’t succeed unless they are implemented correctly’ [online], accessed 26/02/2020.
3.20 Policy exchange. ‘A qualified success: an investigation into T-levels and the wider vocational system’, 2019.
3.21 AoC. ‘College Mergers’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.22 D fE. ‘Further education sector reform case studies’, 2019.
3.23 F E week. ‘College restructuring is complex, secretive and costly’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.24 In this report, vocational qualifications are counted as any qualification type that is not one of the following: GCSE, AS, A level, advanced extension award, project or principal
learning. This is in line with the methodology in Ofqual’s ‘Vocational qualification and other qualifications quarterly’.
3.25 E SFA. ‘List of qualifications approved for funding 14-19’ data, 2019.
3.26 D fE. ‘Assessing the vocational qualifications market in England’, 2017.
3.27 D fE. ‘Implementation of T level programmes government consultation response’, 2018.
4,194
29
Private sector public funded
All sector subject areas
11,865
48
General FE college
All engineering-related
sector subject areas
21,389
Level 3 Total by sector subject area
52
Specialist college
Information and
communication technology
Level 2
1,130
All provider types
Engineering and
manufacturing technologies
Level 1
Other public funded
Private sector public funded
Construction, planning and
the built environment
Vocational engineering qualifications and learners
The sheer volume of disparate vocational qualifications on offer
has frequently been cited as one reason why the FE sector needs
to be reformed. Engineering-related provision is no exception. In
August 2019, 2,390 engineering-related vocational
qualifications3.24 for 16 to 18 year olds had been approved for
funding (Figure 3.4).3.25
Provider type
3,737
8,278
7,475
19,490
188,900
163,756
271,590
624,246
Source: DfE. ‘Education and training overall qualification level achievement rates tables 2018/19’ data, 2020.
For 16 to 18 year olds students in engineering-related sector subject areas, there were no higher level vocational achievements in 2018 to 2019. Across all sector subject areas, 641 16 to 18 year
olds achieved higher level vocational qualifications. General FE college includes tertiary providers. Private sector public funded includes private sector organisations (such as limited liability
partnerships and private limited companies) that deliver FE training funded by the DfE. They are sometimes called ‘independent training providers’. Other public funded refers to local authorities
(LAs) and HE providers. Special colleges includes agriculture and horticulture, art design and performing arts and specialist designated college. ‘-’ denotes there were no achievements.
To view engineering-related vocational achievements for all ages, see Figure 3.5a in our Excel resource.
68
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Also striking is the high proportion of 16 to 18 year olds across all
3 engineering-related sector subject areas whose qualification
was at level 2 or below. At two-thirds (66.8%), this is significantly
more than for learners generally across all subject areas (56.5%).
It’s not clear what will happen to the vast numbers of students
currently on lower level qualifications after T levels are introduced,
as these will replace qualifications currently offered at level 3. DfE
has outlined its vision for a ‘T level transition programme’ aimed
at students who are likely to be able to progress onto a T level
after one year of preparation, which should cover a number of
those currently studying at level 2.3.28 But for those on level 1
qualifications, this programme will not be appropriate. Given we
are in the midst of a DfE ‘Review into post-16 qualifications at level
3 and below in England’,3.29 it is understandable that there may be
some confusion and concerns.
Although successful T level students
who will receive UCAS points in line with
A levels, it is not yet clear whether all
universities will accept these students.
3.3 – T levels
In 2015, the government asked Lord Sainsbury to lead an
independent review of technical education in England. The
ensuing report, ‘Report of the Independent Panel on Technical
Education’,3.30 was wide-ranging and contained a variety of
recommendations. One of the most radical suggestions was that
there should be 15 ‘technical education routes’ to replace the
current system of multiple qualifications offering similar content.
The rationale for this overhaul was that the existing landscape is
extremely confusing for both prospective students and
employers, as there are a multitude of available vocational
qualifications that are often not linked to one specific occupation.
For example, learners wishing to study for a level 3 vocational
qualification in plumbing have 26 qualifications to choose from,
delivered by several different awarding organisations and without
clarity around which is the ‘best’ or most suitable to study.3.31
Employers are often unable to determine whether job applicants
have studied a qualification that has provided them with a
comprehensive set of skills or behaviours that will allow them to
perform the role to the expected standard.
The government accepted all the recommendations made by the
Report of the Independent Panel on Technical Education and
published the Post-16 Skills Plan in July 2016, which outlined how it
would implement technical education reforms.3.32 Central to these
reforms are T levels, a “brand new, 2-year qualification … that brings
classroom learning and an extended industry placement together
on a course designed with businesses and employers”.3.33
Within each of the 15 principal T level routes there will be
individual ‘pathways’. These pathways are more detailed as
they relate to occupational specialisms within each route.
Figure 3.6 shows the different T level routes and pathways
(correct at November 2019):
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
What is a T level?
T levels are new courses that will be available to study in England
for the first time in September 2020. They will follow on from
GCSEs and will be equivalent to 3 A Levels. These 2-year
courses have been developed in collaboration with employers
and businesses so that the content meets the needs of industry
and prepares students for work.
T Levels will offer students a mixture of classroom learning and
‘on-the-job’ experience during an industry placement of
at least 315 hours (approximately 45 days). They will provide the
knowledge and experience needed to open the door into skilled
employment, further study or a higher apprenticeship.3.34
However, it remains to be seen whether all universities will
accept T level students onto their courses. Of the 22 Russell
Group universities that responded to an enquiry by TES
magazine, 16 indicated that they had not yet finalised their policy
on T levels.3.36
If T levels are to be taken seriously as an alternative to A levels,
the engineering community must use their influence and
partnership with higher education institutions to ensure
universities recognise these qualifications and hold them in
sufficiently high esteem, so that where appropriate, T level
students can progress onto HE engineering courses.
Figure 3.6 T level routes, pathways and start dates
Route
Key to the new T level qualifications will be the ‘extended
industry placement’, which at a minimum of 45 days is far
longer than placements currently undertaken by the majority of
learners on vocational qualifications (most of these are one to
2 weeks).3.35 This placement aims to give students a more
practical grounding in their chosen subject.
5 key elements to a T level
Technical qualification, including the core
content and occupational specialisms
Agriculture, environmental and animal care
Business and administration
Care services
Catering and hospitality
Construction
English, maths and digital skills
Industry placements
Creative and design
Occupational-specific requirements
Digital
Employment, enrichment and pastoral care
Education and childcare
Students will receive a separate grade from A* to E for the core
component plus a grade for each occupational specialism,
shown as a pass, merit or distinction. These individual grades
will make up one overall grade, ranked as a pass, merit,
distinction or distinction*.
In keeping with the drive to give technical education ‘parity of
esteem’ with academic education, T level students who achieve
a pass or above will receive UCAS points and will be able to
apply for university (although not all universities use the UCAS
tariff as part of their entry requirements). Those attaining the
highest possible grade (distinction*) will receive UCAS points
equivalent to 3 A*s at A level. A T level distinction earns the
same UCAS points as 3 As at A level, a merit earns the same as
3 Bs, and so on.
Engineering and manufacturing
Hair and beauty
Health and science
Legal, finance and accounting
Protective services
Sales, marketing and procurement
Transport and logistics
3.28 DfE. ‘T level transition programme’, 2019.
3.29 DfE. ‘Review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below in England’, 2019.
3.30 Sainsbury, D. et al. ‘Report of the independent panel on technical education’, 2016.
3.31 Ofqual. ‘Vocational qualifications dataset’ data, 2020.
3.32 BIS and DfE. ‘Post-16 skills plan’, 2016.
3.33 UK Government. ‘T levels’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.34 DfE. ‘Introduction of T levels’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.35 City and Guilds. ‘T level extended work placement research’, 2018.
69
T levels have been developed in collaboration with employers
and businesses, reflecting the strong emphasis on meeting the
needs of industry and preparing students for work. For each
industry, T level panels, consisting of employers, professional
bodies and providers, define the skills and requirements for
relevant T levels and develop the outline content for the
qualification itself, based on the same standards as
apprenticeships. These panels are also responsible for
promoting T levels as part of wider government
communications and engagement strategies.3.37
Pathway
Start date
Animal care and management
Sep 2023
Agriculture, land management and production
Sep 2023
Management and administration
Sep 2022
Human resources
Sep 2022
Care services
Apprenticeship only
Hospitality
Apprenticeship only
Catering
Sep 2023
Design, surveying and planning
Sep 2020
Onsite construction
Sep 2021
Building services engineering
Sep 2021
Craft and design
Sep 2023
Cultural heritage and visitor attractions
Sep 2023
Media, broadcast and production
Sep 2023
Digital support and services
Sep 2021
Digital production, design and development
Sep 2020
Digital business services
Sep 2021
Education
Sep 2020
Engineering, design and development
Sep 2022
Engineering, manufacturing, process and control
Sep 2022
Maintenance, installation and repair
Sep 2022
Hair, beauty and aesthetics
Sep 2023
Health and science
Sep 2021
Healthcare science
Sep 2021
Science
Sep 2021
Community exercise, physical activity, sport and health
Apprenticeship only
Legal
Sep 2022
Financial
Sep 2022
Accountancy
Sep 2022
Protective services
Apprenticeship only
Customer service
Apprenticeship only
Marketing
Apprenticeship only
Procurement
Apprenticeship only
Retail
Apprenticeship only
Transport
Apprenticeship only
Logistics
Apprenticeship only
Source: Figure taken from DfE. ‘T level action plan 2019’, 2019.
3.36 TES. ‘Russell group universities still undecided on T levels’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.37 DfE. ‘T level action plan’, 2019.
70
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Engineering-related T levels
After completing a T level, students will have several options.
These include skilled employment, an apprenticeship or higher
education.3.38
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE)
has published occupational maps for each route,3.39 detailing the
possible occupations associated with each mode of study for
each pathway (including grouping specific occupations within
clusters). Of the 15 T level routes, the largest occupational map is
associated with engineering and manufacturing,3.40 highlighting
the large number of apprenticeship standards on offer in these
sectors. This could mean that the standards developed by
employers in this area are particularly narrow and align to very
specific sets of skills or occupations within engineering.
T level routes in construction
Routes into construction will be among the first T levels to be
delivered in 2020 (Figure 3.7), with the full route on offer by
September 2021, albeit by a limited number of providers.
Naturally, there is a high degree of engineering content within this
route, with many of the occupations within the associated
occupational map related to engineering. The design, surveying
and planning pathway, for example, covers a broad range of
engineering skills as well as a deep understanding of core
industry knowledge in the construction sector. This core
knowledge will be required in each of the construction pathways
available (with the second and third starting in 2021), thereby
ensuring that learners will be comfortable in a broad range of
roles within the construction industry, regardless of where they
choose to hone their skills further along in their careers.
Notably, there is an occupational specialism within the pathway
that focuses on civil engineering, meaning that this first pathway
will be particularly relevant for students wishing to join the
engineering talent pipeline. This specialism contains specific
performance outcomes developed by experts in the field,
including a member of the Institute of Civil Engineers and a chief
engineering surveyor for Skanska UK Plc.3.41 The involvement of
these experts was intended to give both students and employers
confidence that upon completion of the T level, students will be
equipped with the relevant knowledge, skills and behaviours to
perform their chosen occupation.
In addition to civil engineering, the occupational map of the
design, surveying and planning cluster includes digital
engineering and railway engineering design technicians.
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Case study – Preparing for the new T level
qualification
Rosalind Tsang, Programme Leader, Professional
Construction, Blackpool and The Fylde College
The government has selected Blackpool and The Fylde
College to be one of the first colleges offering the design,
surveying and planning T Level in September 2020. This
new course will provide the framework for our students to
gain quality work experience and the technical skills and
knowledge to progress to a Higher Level Technical
qualification or gain a career in industry. Our target is to
enrol 16 students for the new term and we have 18
students already interested in applying.
In preparation for delivering T levels, we have invested over
£500,000 in upgrading our Construction Skills Centre. This
will enable students and tutors to have flexible, robust
workspaces to deliver the new curriculum. We are
committed to remaining at the forefront of technology and
therefore digital development, construction, design,
surveying and business information management apps
have been purchased for our new iPad Pros. Tutors have
also been networking with local employers for future
placement opportunities.
T level routes in engineering and manufacturing
Schools, colleges and other providers will start offering the
engineering and manufacturing T level in the academic year
2022 to 2023. The core content for this T level was finalised in
March 2020 by IfATE and is summarised in brief in Figure 3.7.
Design and
development
Maintenance engineering technologies:
mechatronic
Maintenance,
installation and
repair
Engineering and manufacturing past, present and future
Production technologies
Essential science for engineering and manufacturing
Manufacturing,
processing and
control
Materials and their properties
The initiative was extremely successful as students were
able to gain practical experience and learn more about the
variety of jobs in construction. Of 11 students, 9 secured
part time paid work that is industry relevant. The pilot was
useful in building relationships with employers interested
in offering placements for T levels. For example,
McLaughlin and Harvey is currently building a conference
and exhibition centre, and has supported students with
site visits and future placements as the project
progresses. Based on what we have learnt from the pilot,
we are working on designing new resources and planning
for September.
Recognised standards in engineering and manufacturing
Engineering and manufacturing control systems
Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
Health and safety principles and coverage
Business, commercial and financial awareness
Professional responsibilities, attitudes and behaviours
Stock and asset management
Quality assurance, control and improvement
Continuous improvement
Project and programme management
Maintenance engineering technologies: control
and instrumentation
Maintenance, installation and repair: energy and
utilities
Essential mathematics for engineering and manufacturing
Mechatronics
Maintenance engineering technologies: electrical
and electronic
Maintenance, installation and repair: vehicles
Engineering representations
Electrical and electronic principles
Control and instrumentation engineering
Maintenance engineering technologies:
mechanical
Working within the engineering and manufacturing sectors
Mechanical principles
Electrical and electronic engineering
Structural engineering
Core knowledge and understanding
In September 2019, level 3 construction and the built
environment students piloted the 315-hour industry
placements. These included surveying, design, planning
and site management roles provided by a variety of local
and national construction companies, such as McLaughlin
and Harvey, Evolution Ltd and Fylde Borough Council.
Occupational specialism
Mechanical engineering
Figure 3.7 Core knowledge and understanding required within
the engineering and manufacturing T level route
Each of the engineering T level pathways will have its own
occupational specialisms, which have now been published
(Figure 3.8). While the core knowledge element will be required
across the entire engineering and manufacturing route, the
specialisms will allow students to choose a narrower skill set
once they have grasped the basics of working in the
engineering sector.
71
Pathway
It is expected that students will develop their technical and
practical skills from the beginning of this programme, and at
the same time grow confident in the workplace practices that
underpin safe and effective engineering and manufacturing
activities.
Source: IfATE. ‘Engineering and Manufacturing: Design and Development T Level outline
content: final version for ITT’, 2020.
3.38 DfE. ‘Introduction of T levels’, 2020.
3.39 IfATE. ‘Occupational maps’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.40 IfATE. ‘Occupational map: Engineering and manufacturing’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.41 DfE. ‘Membership of T level panels for 2020 and 2021 delivery’, 2018.
Figure 3.8 Occupational specialisms in engineering and
manufacturing T level pathways
Manufacturing technologies
Processing technologies
Materials technologies
Source: IfATE. ‘T levels final outline content’, 2020.
As stated above, engineering and manufacturing has the most
occupational specialisms attributed to it in its occupational
map. The range of occupations that these T level students
could move into is vast, with 10 distinct job clusters in the
engineering and manufacturing route alone.3.42 It is hoped that
the strong association with specific occupations and
specialisms will be a key draw for both prospective students
and employers, with clear expectations of the skills and
possible employment each qualification may lead to.
Providers’ and employers’ views of T levels
In general, providers and employers appear to be broadly
supportive of new T level qualifications. In a Chartered Institute
of Personnel and Development (CIPD) report, for instance, 44%
of employers surveyed indicated that a T level would make a
positive difference to a young person’s employability overall.3.43
The same report found that hiring someone with a T level
would be employers’ second most popular way to fill an entry
level vacancy (17% of respondents), behind taking on a
graduate (28%). This suggests employers have some faith in
the upcoming qualifications, even though they have not yet
been implemented.
43% of manufacturing employers would
prefer T level students to have a breadth
of engineering and manufacturing
knowledge, rather than a deep, specialist
knowledge.
3.42 IfATE. ‘Occupational map: Engineering and manufacturing’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.43 CIPD. ‘Reforming Technical Education’, 2018.
72
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
The breadth of knowledge T levels seek to cover – as opposed
to the specialist depth of apprenticeships – is proving to be
particularly appealing for industry. Of the employers surveyed
in the CIPD report,3.44 the proportion of employers responding
that they would value breadth of knowledge most highly for a
vacancy in their organisation was over double the number that
would most value depth of knowledge (46% compared with
22%). Similarly, a survey of manufacturing employers
conducted by MakeUK, the manufacturers’ organisation, found
that 43% of those surveyed would prefer T level students to
have a breadth of knowledge in general engineering and
manufacturing concepts, rather than deep, specialist
knowledge.3.45
Views from providers appear to be similarly positive, with a
report by the National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) on how provider organisations are preparing to deliver
the first 3 T levels noting that “providers and sector
representatives are broadly supportive of the move to
introduce T levels”, with one provider describing them as “an
incredibly exciting opportunity”.3.46 Moreover, when asked why
they were interested in delivering T levels, providers commonly
cited the focus on meeting employers’ needs. This is very
promising, given government’s commitment to putting
employers at the forefront of technical education and the
importance of close collaboration between industry and
providers for delivery.
T level industry placement
One component of T levels where industry involvement is
particularly essential is the 45-day industry placement
requirement. So it is perhaps unsurprising that this has been
the source of extensive research and consultation with
employers and providers. Although views vary, in general
employers and providers both appear to see the benefits of the
45-day industry placement requirement and recognise the
need for learners to gain experience in industry.
A 2018 DfE report into employer engagement and capacity to
support T level placements – of which engineering,
manufacturing and construction employers comprised one
quarter of total respondents – noted this overall support, with
the length of placement viewed by employers as “sufficient to
enable the young person to settle in, understand the business
and undertake industry-relevant work of value to both
employers and learners”.3.47
That being said, it was clear in the report that some sectors
and industries expected to be less able to take on placements
than others, with specific legal and regulatory requirements
cited by engineering and manufacturing employers. For
example, employers surveyed from this sector noted the need
to provide constant supervision in certain environments due to
the age of most T level students. Some engineering and
manufacturing employers also pointed out that certain types
of work – often related to safety requirements – were limited
to licenced or otherwise approved persons and required
specific professional memberships, which could make it
difficult to bring in young employees on a short-term basis.3.48
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Just under a third of manufacturers
would be willing to offer a T level
industry placement in its current form.
Similar sector-specific concerns have been voiced via other
channels. In a survey of employers and training providers
conducted by City and Guilds, for example, those working within
construction and engineering and manufacturing were most
likely to report barriers to work placements for young people.3.49
Half of training providers that delivered construction and
engineering and manufacturing qualifications indicated the
same, noting sector-specific barriers to industry placements,
such as the highly technical nature of the role or legal
requirements.
According to research by MakeUK, just one third of
manufacturers surveyed reported that they would offer a T level
student a placement in its current form, with 21% indicating they
would not do so but would consider it if it was more flexible.3.50
Chief among their concerns was the need to juggle work
placement delivery with business needs (55% of respondents).
Manufacturers were also concerned that industry placements
could lead to a reduction in other school engagement activities,
such as careers fairs and factory visits, due to the significant
time and cost they already devoted to these ventures.3.51
If T level work placements are to succeed in the engineering
sector, the professional bodies could examine the restrictions
on certain roles due to regulatory frameworks and decide
whether there may be scope to create specialist opportunities
for new, young employees. This could make the entire work
placement process smoother and increase availability for T level
students.
Awareness of T levels
The extent to which employers are aware of T levels has also
received significant attention. Research conducted by CIPD in
2018 found that just 40% of employers had heard of T levels
prior to being surveyed. Of those who had heard of them, the
majority rated their level of knowledge as fairly poor (46%) or
very poor (18%).3.52
Even as recently as October 2019, after a £250,000 branding
campaign by government, NFER reported that delegates from a
roundtable discussion with provider and sector representatives
said there remained “significant work to do to raise the
awareness and understanding of T levels among young people,
parents/carers and employers”.3.53
A lack of awareness of T level placements also appears to be an
issue among engineering employers. A 2019 survey by the
Institute of Engineering and Technology (IET) found that just
28% of engineering companies surveyed knew of this
requirement. Even more worrying is that upon learning this was
the case, less than 2 in 3 companies said they have capacity to
offer placements (59%) and under half (43%) said they intend to
offer industrial placements.3.54
3.44 Ibid.
3.45 MakeUK. ‘T levels: make or break for manufacturers?’, 2019.
3.46 NFER. ‘T levels research: how are providers preparing for delivery?’, 2019.
3.47 DfE. ‘Employer engagement and capacity to support T level industry placements’, 2018.
3.48 Engineering council. ‘European directive: recognition of professional qualifications’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.49 AELP and City and Guilds. ‘T level work placements research’, 2018.
3.50 MakeUK. ‘T levels: make or break for manufacturers’, 2019.
3.51 Ibid.
3.52 CIPD. ‘Reforming Technical Education’, 2018.
3.53 NFER. ‘T levels research: how are providers preparing for delivery? Follow up report’, 2019.
3.54 IET. ‘IET skills and demand in industry’, 2019.
73
3.4 – Higher technical qualifications
Alongside T levels, the government is actively working to raise
the profile of what is now known as higher technical education
(HTE) – level 4 and 5 qualifications that enable learners to
work in skilled trade roles, demanding higher skills than
covered at T level.
Although there is clear demand in the
labour market for those with Level 4 or 5
qualifications, the UK’s higher technical
education system currently lags far
behind nations such as Germany and
Canada.
Currently, only 10% of adults aged 18 to 65 in the UK hold a
level 4 or 5 qualification as their highest. This compares with,
for example, 20% of adults in Germany and 34% in Canada. The
absolute numbers of students studying for such qualifications
in 2016 to 2017 was under 200,000, compared with 2 million
working towards a level 3 or level 6 qualification.3.55
However, CBI has predicted that in 5 years’ time, almost half of
all employment will be in management, professional and
technical roles, suggesting level 4 or 5 qualifications will be in
high demand.3.56 Already, the advantage of taking this further
qualification is clear, with those achieving a level 4 or 5
qualification by 23 more likely to have a higher median wage
and be in sustained employment by 26 compared with those
who had achieved only a level 3 qualification.3.57
In response to the clear demand for these levels of skills within
the STEM sector,3.58 the government has announced the
creation of new institutes of technology. These are employerled institutions that will offer higher level technical education
(that is, levels 4 and 5) in collaboration with FE providers and
universities to help close skills gaps in key STEM areas.3.59
By April 2020, 12 institutes of technology had been announced.
The majority of these will focus on engineering-related subject
areas (see Figure 3.9). It is hoped that with the range of
employers associated with these new institutes, students
across the country will have the opportunity to pursue STEM at
the higher technical level and equip themselves with the skills
required for their local areas.
Although the renewed government focus on higher technical
education is encouraging for the engineering sector,
successful delivery is dependent on recognising and
addressing both opportunities and challenges specific to the
engineering context. In its response to the DfE’s consultation
on HTE, Education for Engineering (E4E), the body through
which the engineering profession offers coordinated advice on
education and skills policy, recommended that:
• the DfE work closely with Engineering Council and
professional engineering institutions to establish the key set
of knowledge, skills and behaviours of engineering
occupations that should form the basis of standards
• the Engineering Council be involved in the qualification
regulation process, due to its current role in regulating the
profession overall
• caution is taken when considering work based learning or
placements as an essential part of HTE, due to their reliance
on the UK’s economic fortunes and the significant
resourcing already being asked of employers in the delivery
of apprenticeships and degrees, which are already a wellestablished, recognised qualification
It also noted the importance of addressing ‘cold spots’ in terms
of access to training, noting that the institutes of technology
that have been announced are largely based in cities, which
might be difficult for students living in rural areas to access.
3.5 – Teaching in the further education sector
Recruitment and retention issues in the school system are
widely known, with DfE’s stated number one priority being to
“recruit, develop, support and retain teachers”.3.60 But there has
been arguably less focus on issues relating to teaching in the
FE sector. Nevertheless, these do exist and are likely to
become increasingly prominent with the renewed focus on
technical education, especially given the increased teaching
hours that will be required for T levels.3.61 For the UK’s technical
education system to thrive, it is vital that instructors, lecturers,
teachers and assessors within the sector are fully equipped to
teach students the skills to succeed.
In many ways, the talent pool for teaching in the FE sector is
even smaller than that for secondary schools, because many
colleges and training providers are looking for teachers with
industry experience.3.62 There is no formal requirement to hold
a teaching qualification in order to teach in an FE institution,
but potential candidates may be asked to study for a
qualification after taking up their post, depending on the
institution.
Results from the DfE’s 2018 College Staff Survey into the
experience, qualifications and expectations of teachers and
leaders in general and specialist FE colleges suggest that
there are recruitment and retention challenges. Asked what
related challenges they face, the most common responses
among the principals surveyed were competition from higher
salaries in industry (22%) and schools (17%) and a lack of
qualified staff (18%). Existing teachers surveyed also noted
retention challenges, with 14% reporting that they were very
likely to leave FE and 2% saying they were leaving for a role
outside FE.3.63
74% of college principals said
engineering and manufacturing was the
most difficult subject to recruit teachers
for.
3.55 D
fE. ‘Higher technical education: the current system and the case for change’, 2019.
3.56 CBI. ‘Education and learning for the modern world’, 2019.
3.57 DfE. ‘Research reveals lesser known qualifications could help boost skills and jobs’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.58 UKCES. ‘Reviewing the requirement for high level STEM skills’, 2015.
3.59 DfE. ‘The first twelve institutes of technology’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.60 DfE. ‘DfE strategy 2015-2020’, 2016.
3.61 FE Week. ‘Where will all the T -level teachers come from?’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.62 College jobs. ‘Teacher training on the job: Working as an unqualified teacher in FE’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.63 DfE. ‘College staff survey 2018’, 2018.
74
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.9 Institutes of technology open from September 2019 – England
Lead institution
Providers
Employers
Subject specialisms
Barking and Dagenham
College
Barking and Dagenham College
Huawei, Saint Gobain, Transport
for London
Construction and infrastructure,
advanced engineering and
robotics, creative and digital
Dudley College of
Technology
Dudley College of Technology, In-Comm
Training & Business Services Ltd
Thomas Dudley Ltd, Fulcro COINS, Manufacturing, construction,
The Dudley Group NHS Foundation medical technology
Trust, Marches Centre for
Manufacturing
New College Durham
New College Durham, NA College Trust,
Middlesbrough College, Sunderland
College, Tyne Coast College, East
Durham College, Newcastle University
Nissan Motor Company Ltd, ESH
Group Ltd
University of Exeter
Bridgwater and Taunton College, City
Babcock, Met Office, Oxygen
College Plymouth, Exeter College, Petroc, House, TDK Lambda
Truro and Penwith College, University of
Exeter, University of Plymouth
Digital, engineering,
manufacturing
HCUC, Brunel University London
Engineering technologies (digital,
cyber security, ICT). Related:
construction, professional and
business services, creative
industries
Harrow College and
Uxbridge College (HCUC)
University of Lincoln
Heathrow, Fujitsu, West London
Business
Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher
Siemens, Bakkavor Ltd, Olympus
Education, DN Colleges Group (North
Automation Limited
Lindsey College), Lincoln College, Boston
tCollege, Grantham College, Bishop
Burton (Riseholme College), Lincoln UTC,
University of Lincoln
Digital advanced manufacturing,
construction and the built
environment
Agri-tech, food manufacturing,
energy, digital, engineering
Moreover, these challenges appear particularly acute in
relation to engineering teachers (and, to a lesser extent,
construction and digital teachers). An overwhelming 88% of FE
college principals reported engineering and manufacturing to
be a difficult vocational subject for which to recruit skilled
teaching staff. Even more striking is that just under 3 in 4 (74%)
reported engineering and manufacturing to be “the most
difficult to recruit in”, making it the highest ranked subject in
this category.
In part, these challenges may be driven by the sheer number of
teachers required in engineering and manufacturing and
related areas. As Figure 3.10 shows, construction and
engineering and manufacturing rank second and third
respectively in terms of number of staff teaching in colleges.
Figure 3.10 Teaching staff numbers in FE colleges by
vocational subject taught (2018) – England
Total number
of teachers
Proportion of
vocational
teaching
population (%)
Creative and design
5,700
14.4%
Construction
4,980
12.6%
Engineering and
manufacturing
4,580
11.6%
Agriculture, environmental
and animal care
4,030
10.2%
Vocational subject taught
Queen Mary University
of London
Newham College, Queen Mary University
of London
Siemens, Port of London Authority, Transport, engineering,
London and Regional Properties
infrastructure, energy, digital
Health and science
3,700
9.3%
Milton Keynes College
Milton Keynes College, Activate Learning
Cranfield University
Microsoft Ltd, KPMG, Evidence
Talks, McAfee, (Volkswagen
Financial Services (VWFS)
Business and admin
2,980
7.5%
Hair and beauty
2,900
7.3%
Childcare and education
2,420
6.1%
Solihull College and
University Centre
Solihull College and University Centre,
Bosch Thermotechnology Ltd,
South and City College Birmingham,
Salts Healthcare
Birmingham Metropolitan College (BMet),
Aston University, Birmingham City
University, University of Birmingham,
University College Birmingham
Manufacturing, engineering
Catering and hospitality
1,650
4.2%
Digital/IT
1,980
5.0%
Social care
1,970
5.0%
Protective services
800
2.0%
Swindon College, New College Swindon,
University of Gloucester
Nationwide, Catalent Pharma
Solutions, Excalibur
Communications Ltd, BMW Group,
Appsbroker Consulting Ltd,
Hartham Park, Recycling
Technologies, Render, Create
Studios
Advanced engineering and high
value manufacturing, digital and
information and communications
technology, creative industries,
health and life sciences
Legal, finance and accounting
830
2.1%
Sales, marketing and
procurement
720
1.8%
Transport and logistics
390
1.0%
Airbus, GE Aviation, GKN
Aerospace, JISC, National
Composites Centre, North
Somerset Council, Mayden
Academy, Renishaw, St Monica
Trust, Tech Op Solutions Ltd,
Weston Area Health NHS Trust
Health and life sciences,
engineering and advanced
manufacturing, creative, digital
and hi-tech
Swindon College
Weston College of Further Weston College of Further and Higher
and Higher Education
Education, Bath College, Gloucester
College, Yeovil College, University of the
West of England (UWE Bristol)
York College
York College, Grimsby Institute of Further ENGIE Fabricom, Skipton Building
and Higher Education (Scarborough TEC), Society, GB Recruitment
Askham Bryan College, Bishop Burton
College, Craven College, East Riding
College, Selby College, University of Hull,
University of York St John
Cyber security, digital sector,
fintech, ICT
Agri-tech, engineering,
manufacturing, digital
This may prove to be particularly difficult in a sector such as
engineering, where there is a natural tension between teaching
and addressing the wider skills shortages in industry. Those
able to teach these higher level engineering qualifications are
often the same people who are in demand to fill engineering
roles within industry.
This tension is reinforced by disparities in remuneration. A
research report looking at which professions were similar to FE
teaching reported that FE recruitment and retention pressures
were strongly associated with pay differentials. It also noted that
these were “greatest in a number of areas identified by the
Government’s industrial strategy as key to the UK’s growth
prospects, specifically construction, planning and the built
environment, engineering and manufacturing technologies and
ICT”.3.64 This is borne out in salary data, where the median
average salary for an engineering professional in 2019 is
£41,912,3.65 which is around £10,000 more than that of an
engineering teacher in FE.3.66
Such disparities have clear implications for retention, with the
college staff survey reporting that 42% of teachers who had a
job offer outside FE were leaving due to pay.3.67 This is worrying,
given the significant reforms underway in the technical
education sector. Both DfE and the Education and Training
Foundation (ETF) have responded to the issue with potential
policy solutions to attract more teachers into vocational training.
Source: Figure adapted from DfE. ‘College staff survey 2018’, 2018.
The total number of teachers are based on population estimates and are rounded to the
nearest 10.
It’s also evident that those with the requisite skills to teach at
certain levels are in short supply. Although 88% of engineering
and manufacturing teachers said they felt qualified to teach
level 3 or higher qualifications – a positive finding given the
imminent introduction of the new level 3 T level qualifications
– just 48% said the same of level 4 or higher. In other words,
just under half of the vocational engineering teaching
workforce feel qualified to teach higher technical
qualifications. Yet with the increased emphasis on level 4 and 5
qualifications, it is likely that additional teachers will be needed
in the FE sector who are able to teach at these levels.
Case study – Why I decided to retrain as an FE
teacher
Jamie East, Course Leader, National College for Nuclear
(formerly an industrial engineer)
I decided to retrain as a teacher to give students the
chances I had in life to better themselves and their careers
through education.
The change to teaching from engineering is initially
daunting, but confidence comes quickly as you get used to
the classroom. The job is very quickly much more
rewarding, and you will spend a lot more time talking to
people and getting to know them. It’s an excellent job if
you have a good team of like-minded educators who want
to help people. I also found that the experienced teachers
were more than happy to share experiences and
disseminate advice.
In terms of your lifestyle, the institution and your role in it
will be the overriding factor. Most teachers I’ve met do
work at home and do extra hours, but some manage to
keep it all at work – it’s down to you and the organisation
to get the work/life balance you’re after.
Teaching technical engineering elements is the easiest
part of the job – the surrounding topics, such as including
professional ethics and the effects of technology on
society, can be the challenge!
We need to have an open and honest dialogue with people
joining teaching if they’re going to be retained. The bulk of
the job is in the classroom, but you will be spending a lot of
time doing admin and following political and strategic
initiatives – you must be prepared to engage with that side
of things if you want to succeed.
Source: Figure taken from DfE. ‘Institutes of technology: details of providers, employers and specialisms’, 2020.
3.64 D
fE. ‘Identifying further education teacher comparators’, 2018.
3.65 O
NS. ‘Earnings and hours worked, occupation by four digit SOC: ASHE table 14’ data, 2019.
3.66 E
TF. ‘Further Education workforce data for England’, 2019.
3.67 D
fE. ‘College staff survey 2018’, 2018.
75
76
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Initiatives for FE teachers
In a bid to address issues of teacher recruitment and retention
in FE, DfE has recently embarked on a range of initiatives,
including:
• Taking Teaching Further, a national initiative to attract
experienced industry professionals with expert technical
knowledge and skills to work in FE, which is being managed
by ETF and aims to recruit 150 new teachers across 2 rounds
of funding.3.68 This programme will be particularly relevant
within the engineering sector as the subjects that are being
targeted in the first instance are the first T level routes and
other STEM areas.3.69
• T level Professional Development (TLPD), which aims to
“ensure teachers and trainers have the teaching skills,
subject knowledge and confidence needed to deliver a highquality T level programme from the outset”.3.70 While this
offer is focused on those teachers delivering the new T level
qualifications, it applies to any provider offering any of the
new T levels, so it is hoped the training will benefit the entire
teaching workforce. The ‘professional development needs
analysis’ will be done by a team of professional development
advisers who “visit organisations and institutions who are
confirmed to deliver T levels on a termly basis, advising them
and gathering feedback that informs the development of
providers’ professional development plans”.3.71
• The introduction of ‘knowledge hubs’, which include the
industry insight aspect of the TLPD offer.3.72 This activity will
ensure that teachers and trainers have the teaching skills,
subject knowledge and confidence needed to deliver T
levels, and the hubs will focus on embedding industrystandard practices within the T level teaching
specification.3.73 In an engineering context, it is imperative
that those teaching the subject are well-versed in the most
up-to-date practices, especially as the sector evolves in the
process of the fourth industrial revolution, and more and
more specialist knowledge will need to be embedded in the
profession.
• Initial Teacher Education (ITE) bursaries, which are financial
incentives to attract high-quality individuals into the teaching
profession in the FE sector.3.74 These bursaries vary
depending on subject taught. Prospective engineering and
manufacturing teachers will have £26,000 available to them
to train within the FE sector – among the highest rates
available.
Given the shortage of engineers in the UK economy already,
the role of engineering teachers will be of paramount
importance in training a skilled workforce. However, the
difficulty lies in attracting those with sufficient industry
experience to teach engineering in a practical setting. The
government has made a good start with the programmes
mentioned above, but the engineering community must
strengthen the relationship between industry and the teaching
profession by working closely with local employers and
colleges, encouraging collaboration between them.
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
The influence of professional engineering institutions means
that they have a role to play in disseminating information about
the benefits of teaching to their members. In addition, where
possible, they can assist in developing ways to share up-todate industry knowledge with engineering teachers.
3.6 – Apprenticeship reforms
In sections 3.1 and 3.2 we outlined the different types of
technical education and showed that apprentices make up a
large proportion of learners in the FE sector in England (see
Figure 3.1 in section 3.2). In addition to the vocational
qualification reforms in FE, there have been extensive reforms
to the apprenticeship system, which have significantly
impacted both engineering apprentices and employers.
Trailblazer
group
submits
occupational
proposal
Institute approves the
occupational proposal and
provides the group with
information on funding
bands
Trailblazer group submits
occupational standard and
end-point assessment
(EPA) plan
Institute agrees occupational standard and
EPA plan; published on website
Trailblazer group submits
funding evidence
Institute makes
funding band
recommendation
Apprenticeship standards
The first large change came with the introduction of
apprenticeship standards (England only) in October 2013 to
replace the old style of apprenticeships called frameworks.
These have since been phased in gradually.
The difference between a framework and a
standard
Framework: Apprenticeship frameworks are ‘qualification
based’, meaning that learners are continually assessed
throughout the apprenticeship by studying different units
and ticking them off as they go. There is no overall end
assessment, so there is no confirmation of whether the
learners can actually perform the job they are training for.
Standard: A standard is an occupational profile, which
includes a list of duties and the skills, knowledge and
behaviour that an apprentice needs to have learned by the
end of their apprenticeship. Learning happens throughout
the entire apprenticeship, with an end-point assessment to
determine whether the student can carry out the job.
Apprentices are required to spend 20% of the time
completing off-the-job learning, normally at an FE college
or training provider.
Apprenticeship standards are developed by groups of
employers called trailblazers, with the intention that these
industry experts will be well placed to determine the skills
needs within their sector.
There are currently 227 standards approved for delivery in the
engineering and manufacturing, construction and digital
routes, with an additional 41 in development and 17 with a
proposal in development.3.75, 3.76 Many of these are brand new,
so did not have any learners in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
By comparison, there were 31 engineering-related frameworks
with apprenticeship starts and 156 standards. Despite these
figures being heavily skewed towards standards, the number of
starts on each type of apprenticeship was more balanced, with
around 91,000 starts on frameworks and 86,000 starts on
standards.3.77
3.68 E
TF. ‘Taking teaching further’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.69 S
pecifically, the programme aims to “increase the overall number of skilled FE teachers in the technical routes that will be taught first (childcare and education, digital,
construction, engineering and manufacturing and other STEM technical routes).”
3.70 A
oC. ‘T level regional knowledge hubs’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.71 E
TF. ‘T level professional development’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.72 Ibid.
3.73 E TF. ‘T level knowledge hubs, teacher regional improvement projects and industry insight activity set to launch’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.74 D
fE. ‘Further Education (FE) initial teacher education (ITE) bursaries funding manual’, 2020.
3.75 IfATE, ‘Apprenticeship standards’ data, 2020.
3.76 C
orrect as at 27/02/2020.
3.77 D
fE. ‘Apprenticeships and traineeships 2018/19’ data, 2019.
77
Figure 3.11 Apprenticeship standard development process – England
Secretary of State
makes funding
band decision
Apprenticeship
standard
approved for
delivery
Institute provides the trailblazer group with a relationship manager (RM), to act as a link between the institute and the group. The RM is
an expert on apprenticeship policy and apprenticeship standard development.
Source: Figure adapted from: Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. ‘Developing new apprenticeship standards’, 2019.
This represents an increase from 2017 to 2018. In 2018 to
2019, standards accounted for 40% of apprenticeship starts in
construction, planning and the built environment, 46% in
engineering and manufacturing technologies apprenticeships,
and 67% in information and communication technology.
Although these figures are encouraging, employers within the
engineering sector will need to work closely with route panels
to ensure sufficient availability of apprenticeship standards,
because after 31 July 2020, all new apprenticeship starts must
be on standards.
The apprenticeship levy
The other major change to the apprenticeship system was the
introduction of the apprenticeship levy, which came into effect
in April 2017 to “help deliver new apprenticeships and support
quality training by putting employers at the centre of the
system”.3.78 The levy is a tax on employers charged at 0.5% of
an employer’s total salary bill, but only affects companies with
an annual salary bill of over £3 million. Employers can access
their funds through an online apprenticeship service and it
must be used exclusively on apprenticeships. Unspent levy
funds are used to support existing apprentices and pay for
apprenticeship training for smaller employers.3.79, 3.80 Unlike
apprenticeship standards, the apprenticeship levy applies
across all of the UK, and discussion about the levy in the
devolved nations can be found in section 3.8.
The levy was positioned by George Osbourne as a key
mechanism to achieve the target set by government in 2015 to
reach an additional 3 million apprenticeship starts in England
by 2020.3.81 However, figures suggest that the levy is not
currently incentivising starts in the way intended and in June
2019, the Education secretary Damian Hinds signalled to the
Commons Education Select Committee that the 3 million
target was unlikely to be achieved.3.82
In 2018, Chancellor Phillip Hammond announced a number of
changes, primarily to address employer concerns around
flexibility. These included levy transfers, which allowed larger
employers to transfer unused funds to those in their supply
chain, and a reduction in the rate that smaller employers had to
pay for their apprentices.3.83 However, the reaction from
employers suggests that these changes may not have been
sufficiently far-reaching.
Use of levy funds
In the first year of the apprenticeship levy, employers were only
using a small proportion of available funds, according to a
2019 National Audit Office (NAO) report which stated that in
2017 to 2018 there was a £400 million underspend in the
apprenticeships budget.3.84 The government received £2.01
billion from Treasury to spend on apprentices, but only £268
million was spent by levy-paying employers on apprentices,
with the remainder spent on pre-levy training, non-levy
apprenticeships and maintaining the apprenticeship
programme and service.
Given that by 2019 to 2020 the funding available for investment
in apprenticeships in England will have risen to over £2.5
billion, this means that employers are only drawing upon 9% of
the available funds.
3.78 H
MRC. ‘Policy paper: Apprenticeship levy’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
3.79 Ibid.
3.80 D
fE. ‘Key facts you should know about the apprenticeship levy’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
3.81 H
M Treasury. ‘Chancellor George Osborne’s summer budget 2015 speech’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
3.82 F
E week. ‘Government says they will fail conservative manifesto commitment to 3 million apprenticeship starts’ [online], accessed 09/04/2020.
3.83 F
E News. ‘Extra £90M in funding and 25% of apprenticeship levy able to be transferred to supply chain’ [online], accessed 27/02/2020.
3.84 N
AO. ‘The apprenticeships programme’, 2019.
78
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
However, recent evidence suggests that there is now a
possibility of overspend of the apprenticeship levy in future.
This is due to the transition to apprenticeship standards –
which are around double the cost they were expected to be3.85
– and the increased numbers of higher level apprenticeship
starts (see Figure 3.16 in section 3.6 below for more detail),
which cost more than lower levels. A 2019 report by the
Learning and Work Institute suggested there could be a £1
billion overspend in coming years,3.86 but analysis by Richard
Marsh for FE News suggests this may be an exaggeration.3.87
While it is impossible to predict exactly how much levy funding
will be spent by employers, it is clear that engineering and
technology apprenticeships tend to be more expensive than
those in other sectors and a large proportion of engineeringrelated apprenticeship standards sit within higher funding
bands. Indeed, 23% of engineering and manufacturing
technologies apprenticeship standards were placed in the
maximum possible funding band of £27,000.3.88 This means
that engineering firms in particular should take full advantage
of the levy funds available to them to train new and existing
staff.
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.12 Understanding of the apprenticeship levy system
among levy-paying employers (2018) – England
Yes, I understand the apprenticeship levy system perfectly
51%
No, I understand how levy payments work and how to reclaim funds
but not how apprenticeship standards work
20%
No, I do not undertand how to reclaim our levy funds
to train apprentices
10%
Other
8%
No, I do not understand how to pay the levy
4%
Don't know
3%
Employers in engineering, and across all
industries, said the time constraints
associated with hiring apprentices
posed the biggest challenge.
N/A
3%
Source: Figure adapted from Institute of Directors. 'Business leaders finally getting to grips
with apprenticeship levy' [online], accessed 06/04/2020.
Q: Do you feel you understand sufficiently how the government's apprenticeship levy system
works?
Data presented in this figure is based on 215 respondents from businesses that pay the levy.
Early evidence indicated that employers were not taking
advantage of the apprenticeship levy. However, a 2018 survey
from the Open University found that, in general, employers felt
the process of accessing levy funding through their online
apprenticeship service account was easier than they thought it
would be. Indeed, 29% agreed it was ‘clear and
straightforward’, compared with just 15% who said it was
confusing.3.89 One issue, however, seemed to be the time
constraints that accessing funding requires, with 30% of
employers saying it took longer than expected and 18%
agreeing that the administration required was a drain on
management time.3.90
Use of levy funding initially appeared low among engineering
and manufacturing employers. Research by MakeUK found
that manufacturers surveyed were as unlikely as businesses
across industry to have used levy funding, with just 19% having
spent levy money in 2018.3.92 Furthermore, those who were
using their funds were spending on average just 26% to 50% of
the levy. The largest barriers to recruiting apprentices reported
by manufacturers – both levy paying and non-levy paying –
were time and staff constraints, as significant resources were
needed to mentor and train the apprentices during their on-thejob training.
A survey by the Institute of Directors also found that, despite
understanding of the levy system, the extra administrative
burden on employers was a factor in hiring apprentices.
Among those surveyed who did not hire apprentices, 27%
cited ‘administrative burden’ or ‘time constraints’ as the
reason for not doing so. This was in the context of 51% of
levy-paying employers saying they ‘understood the levy
system perfectly’ and a further 20% indicating that they
understood the levy system, but not how apprenticeship
standards work (Figure 3.12).3.91
However, a more recent (2019) skills survey of engineering
employers by the IET offered more encouraging findings, with
71% of companies liable to pay the levy indicating they use it to
some degree, and almost one in four (23%) noting they had
increased the number of engineering or technical
apprenticeships offered.3.93 The survey results furthermore
suggest that 47% of engineering firms find it “extremely easy”
or “somewhat easy” to use the apprenticeship levy, and that
“having the capacity within the firm to take on an apprentice” is
thought to be the best way to encourage establishments to
create an engineering or technical apprenticeship.3.94
These findings suggest that over and above accessing and
using levy funding, it is practical capacity and resource
constraints that pose the most significant challenges for
engineering companies to employ apprentices.
3.85 Ibid.
3.86 L
earning and work institute. ‘Bridging the gap: next steps for the apprenticeship levy’, 2019.
3.87 F
E news. ‘£2bn Levy underspend: Has the demise of the levy been much exaggerated?’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
3.88 IfATE. ‘Apprenticeship standards’ data, 2020.
3.89 T
he Open University. ‘The apprenticeship levy: one year on’, 2018.
3.90 Ibid.
3.91 Institute of Directors. ‘Business leaders finally getting to grips with apprenticeship levy’ [online], accessed 02/04/2020.
3.92 M
akeUK. ‘An unlevy playing field for manufacturers’, 2019.
3.93 IET. ‘Skills and demand in industry 2019 survey’, 2019.
3.94 Ibid.
79
Employers in the engineering sector
agree with those in wider industry, and
would like to see the apprenticeship levy
changed to a skills levy.
Calls for flexibility in the apprenticeship levy
Many employers have expressed concerns about the restrictive
nature of the funding and have called for more flexibility. Among
firms taking part in a survey by the Confederation of British
Industry (CBI) in 2018, 59% indicated “the main change that
would boost business confidence in the apprenticeship levy is
allowing use of levy funds to cover a wider range of costs for
training”.3.95
Similarly, a 2019 CIPD report found that 53% of employers who
currently pay the levy would prefer a training levy, compared with
just 17% supporting an apprenticeship levy.3.96 A 2018 survey of
apprenticeship decision makers commissioned by City and
Guilds found that “92% of those we polled called for greater
flexibility in how the levy is spent, with more emphasis placed on
spend that more broadly supports apprenticeship delivery and
other vital workplace training”.3.97
This viewpoint has also been found among engineering
employers, with the MakeUK research suggesting that 42% of
manufacturing employers want “greater flexibility when
spending money on training apprentices” and that 95% want to
see the levy changed, with many wanting it to be moved to a
skills levy.3.98 In its 2019 skills survey, The IET recommended
greater flexibility on levy spending for wider skills
development.3.99
Highlighting a broad agreement within the engineering sector,
the 2019 report ‘Engineering skills for the future: The 2013
Perkins review revisited’ recommended that “government
should give employers greater control and flexibility in how they
spend the apprenticeship levy, including to support other high
quality training provision in the workplace, such as improving
the digital skills of the workforce”.3.100 This crucial
recommendation has since been endorsed by the National
Engineering Policy Centre.3.101
Given the widespread consensus – between both engineering
employers and those across industry more generally – on the
need for change in the apprenticeship levy, a review by the
government may be appropriate. This could seek to address
concerns around both the flexibility and the appropriateness of
the tax in its current form.
At the time of writing no such review has been announced, but
employers within the engineering sector should continue to
engage with apprenticeship decision-makers in government to
ensure the sector has a key role to play in any future
development of the apprenticeship programme.
Off-the-job training
A key element of the English apprenticeship system, introduced
into legislation in 2017, is the requirement that apprentices
spend a certain amount of their time completing ‘off-the-job
training’. This is defined as “training which is not on-the-job
training and is received by the apprentice, during the
apprentice’s normal working hours, for the purpose of achieving
the knowledge, skills and behaviours of the approved
apprenticeship referenced in the apprenticeship agreement.”3.102
Off-the-job training is not a new requirement for
apprenticeships. However, the requirement that apprentices
spend at least 20% of their ‘normal hours’ in off-the-job training
was only made mandatory for government funded
apprenticeships by the Education and Skills Funding Agency
(ESFA) in the 2017 to 2018 academic year.3.103
Case study – New approaches to
apprenticeships in light of government reforms
Chris Shirley, Apprentice Services Manager,
Network Rail
At Network Rail, we have had a long-standing rail
engineering apprenticeship programme. The introduction
of the apprenticeship levy and the move to standards has
led to a new approach to how we use apprenticeships to
meet our skills gaps.
Along with the rest of the rail industry, we have developed
rail engineering career pathways from entry level to senior
management (this year we saw progression from level 3 to
4, and level 4 to 6 apprenticeships), covering all aspects of
railway engineering and offering different step on and off
points, reflecting varied career development.
We have also recognised the value of apprenticeships in
developing career pathways for railway operators –
particularly in signalling, train driving and railway
operations – where we have recently launched a new level
5 apprenticeship programme. We have doubled our
apprenticeship recruitment rates and are also seeing a
strong internal demand to upskill existing employees who
have historically not wanted to follow an academic
development pathway.
The future looks promising, with the introduction of higher
level apprenticeships across a wide range of engineering
and professional disciplines, which will allow us to
increase the capability of our organisation across different
career pathways. The apprenticeship levy has encouraged
a different approach to skills development, because
historically at the higher levels it has been more
academically led, whereas the levy has encouraged the
pursuit of development pathways that include skills and
behaviours in addition to the more traditional academic
focus.
Looking forwards, the momentum that has been gained
over the past 3 years needs to be maintained, as
apprenticeships play a vital role in increasing
organisational capability, improving diversity within the
workforce and encouraging social mobility. Flexibility in
how apprenticeships can be delivered and tailored to
individual needs is key to getting the best out of our
people.
3.95 CBI and Pearson. ‘Educating for the modern world’, 2018.
3.96 CIPD. ‘Addressing employer underinvestment in training’, 2019.
3.97 City and guilds. ‘Flex for success? Employers’ perspectives on the apprenticeship levy’, 2018.
3.98 MakeUK. ‘An unlevy playing field for manufacturers’, 2019.
3.99 IET. ‘Skills and demand in industry 2019 survey’, 2019.
3.100 RAEng. ‘Engineering skills for the future: the 2013 Perkins review revisited’, 2019.
3.101 NEPC. ‘Engineering priorities for our future economy and society’, 2019.
3.102 T
he Apprenticeships (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2017 (SI 2017/1310). [online], accessed 20/02/2020.
3.103 ESFA. ‘Apprenticeship funding: rules and guidance for employers May 2017 to July 2018’, 2018.
80
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Although apprentices are employees,
they are primarily students, and must
have dedicated time to learn.
The 2012 Richard Review, which led to many of the
apprenticeship reforms in England, identified off-the-job
training as a crucial component of apprenticeships. It stated
that “off-the-job … gives the apprentice safeguarded time away
from their job to ensure they can do substantial training. It can
give them a peer group of different apprentices and a wider
perspective, ensuring that someone else other than their
employer is inputting to the transferability.”3.104
Central to this argument is the need for employers to recognise
that although apprentices are employees, they are first and
foremost students and must have dedicated time to learn.
Off-the-job training in other countries – a
comparison
Apprenticeships in other countries also tend to include of
a set amount of time completing ‘off the job’ training:
• In the widely hailed German Vocational Education and
Training system (also called the dual training system),
trainees spend part of their time at a company and the
remainder at specialist vocational schools where they
obtain theoretical knowledge for their occupation of
choice, often for weeks at a time.3.105
• Typically, apprentices in Germany spend at least one day
per week (20% of their time) completing off-the-job
training.3.106
• In the Netherlands, apprentices spend one day per week
(20%) at ‘school’ and 4 days in the company.3.107
• In Belgium, apprentices spend one to 2 days per week
(20% to 40%) at ‘school’ and 3 to 4 days per week at the
company.3.108
• In other countries apprentices spend significantly more
time in off-the-job training: in Sweden, for example, 50%
of apprentices’ time is spent undertaking classroom
based vocational education. 3.109, 3.110
There seems to be a lesson to be learned from other countries,
which is that successful apprenticeship programmes are
generally characterised by a formal system in which
apprentices spend dedicated time in good quality training and
development.3.111 Key to this is the full support of industry. So it
is perhaps revealing that employers in England have reacted to
this 20% off-the-job training with some concern, particularly in
relation to its perceived rigidity and the potential for
misinterpretation:
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
• A 2019 CBI report on improving the apprenticeship levy
called the 20% off-the-job training requirement “a blunt and
inflexible policy tool, however well-intentioned”, and noted
that “there are significant inconsistencies in the way the 20%
rule is interpreted, applied and measured… there remains a
significant amount of confusion among employers”.3.112
• A recent report by the Institute of Student Employers noted
employer concerns that the off-the-job training requirement
has been interpreted differently by different providers and
prevented existing staff from taking part in
apprenticeships.3.113
Furthermore, a recent National Audit Office report reinforced
the view that inconsistencies abound, noting that many
apprentices are not currently spending at least 20% of their
time doing off-the-job training and highlighting this as a major
risk to the apprenticeship programme as a whole.3.114
EngineeringUK held a focus group with its corporate members
to explore the challenges and opportunities faced by
employers in expanding the supply of apprenticeships and the
impact of reforms. The results suggested that similar
concerns are held within the engineering and manufacturing
industries. Engineering firms that took part noted the use of
apprenticeships to retrain existing workers and raised
questions around whether the levy is having its intended effect
for engineering companies.
The 20% off-the-job training requirement was a key concern,
with several engineering employers feeling that the
requirement ought to be made more flexible or even reduced.
The degree to which 20% off-the-job training was required was,
it was felt, dependent on the nature of the apprenticeship and
the skills and competency required.
Similar concerns were raised by manufacturing employers
taking part in a MakeUK survey, with 39% of levy-paying
manufacturers surveyed indicating that the off-the-job training
requirement was a barrier to taking on more apprentices,
because it required sufficient staffing capacity to cover
apprentices while they were away from their normal duties.
It’s possible that this reluctance may be due, in part, to a view
that apprentices are primarily employees – not students – as
well as a (mis)perception that off-the-job training cannot take
place in the workplace. Seeking to dispel myths surrounding
this requirement, the government has clarified that off-the-job
training can take place in the workforce, as long as the
apprentice is learning new knowledge, skills and behaviours,
and completing tasks that are “away from the apprentice’s
normal working duties”.3.115
To ensure the success of the apprenticeship programme and
increase the numbers of apprentices in the engineering
pipeline, the government must make clear both the necessity
of and the rationale behind the 20% off-the-job training
requirement. In addition, engineering employers should
recognise the benefits that this additional training will provide.
3.7 – Apprenticeship trends in England
Reforms to the apprenticeship system have had a major
impact on the number of apprenticeship starts. This can be
seen most acutely in the drop in starts seen in the fourth
quarter of 2016 to 2017, just after the apprenticeship levy came
into place (Figure 3.13).
The introduction of the apprenticeship
levy caused a drastic reduction in overall
apprenticeship starts.
Figure 3.13 suggests that the introduction of the levy caused a
dramatic immediate change in the behaviour of employers and
learners. As a result, it’s difficult to determine whether the
impact will be long-lasting.
The 2018 to 2019 data shows that apprenticeship starts have
picked up slightly from their lowest point in 2017 to 2018, but
the figures are still far below those observed in 2016 to 2017
and earlier, before the levy was introduced. Provisional start
data for 2019 to 2020 indicates another slight drop in starts.
The ‘cumulative starts’ line indicates that the government has
failed to reach its target of 3 million starts by 2020.
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, there were 103,620
engineering-related apprenticeship starts overall, which is an
increase of 3.6% from 2017 to 2018. Numbers dropped by
10.3% between 2016 to 2017 and 2017 to 2018 after the
introduction of the levy, but the drop was smaller than it was
for apprenticeship starts overall (a decline of 24.1% across all
sector subject areas). This means that in 2018 to 2019,
engineering-related starts made up a higher proportion (26.3%)
of all starts than before the apprenticeship levy was introduced
(see Figure 3.14).
About the data: apprenticeships
In this section, we refer to ‘engineering-related
apprenticeships’, which are apprenticeships in the
construction, planning and built environment, engineering
and manufacturing technologies, and information,
communication and technology (ICT) sector subject areas.
Data is presented separately for each sector subject area in
certain figures. Full breakdowns are available in the Excel
resource.
In England, there are 3 levels of apprenticeship: intermediate
(level 2), advanced (level 3) and higher (levels 4 to 7). Higher
level apprenticeships include all apprenticeships at levels 4
and above. However, level 6 and 7 apprenticeships are
specifically called ‘degree apprenticeships’, because the
apprentice will achieve a full degree upon completion. For
more detailed information about levels of qualification in
England and the UK please see Figure 1.2 in Chapter 1.
Starts, achievements and achievement rates
Apprenticeship starts – this is the number of learners who
started an apprenticeship in the listed academic year. It is an
indicator that provides timely apprenticeship statistics and is
the metric most commonly used by government and other
stakeholders to analyse the success of the apprenticeship
programme.
Apprenticeship achievements – this is the number of
learners who successfully completed an apprenticeship in
the academic year, but due to the different lengths of time
taken for different apprenticeship programmes, numbers of
achievements cannot be compared directly with starts.
The two indicators measure different aspects of
apprenticeships. In this section we will primarily provide
analysis on apprenticeship starts. This is because starts
provide the most up to date information on the make-up of
apprentices and how the picture is changing in the rapidlydeveloping FE landscape. Often it is not necessary to include
both metrics, because achievements tend to show a similar
picture as starts but with a delay, which is not appropriate
given the introduction of the levy.
Where relevant, results will also be presented for
apprenticeship achievements. More detailed data on both
indicators is available in the accompanying Excel resource.
Apprenticeship achievement rates – this measures the
proportion of people who completed their apprenticeship
within the academic year out of all those who were due to do
so. This is different from the overall number of
apprenticeship achievements, which does not take into
account when the learner started their apprenticeship or
whether they completed it by their planned end date.
Published DfE data does not allow analysis of apprenticeship
achievement rates by both sector subject area and personal
characteristics such as gender and ethnicity, so it is not
possible to present engineering-related achievement rates by
those characteristics.
3.104 Richard, D. ‘The Richard review of apprenticeships’, 2012.
3.105 German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). ‘The German vocational training system’ [online], accessed 20/02/2020.
3.106 Gatsby Charitable Trust. ‘Taking training seriously: lessons from an international comparison of off-the-job training for apprenticeships in England’, 2018.
3.107 European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). ‘Apprenticeship schemes in European countries: a cross-nation overview’, 2018.
3.108 Ibid.
3.109 Ibid.
3.110 T
he Swedish apprenticeship differs in that it is based within the school system, unlike in the majority of programmes where students complete apprenticeships after their school
education.
3.111 European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training (Cedefop). ‘Apprenticeship schemes in European countries: a cross-nation overview’, 2018.
3.112 CBI. ‘Learning on the job: improving the apprenticeship levy’, 2019.
3.113 ISE. ‘Stability, transparency, flexibility and employer ownership. Employer recommendations for improving the apprenticeship system’, 2019.
3.114 NAO. ‘The apprenticeships programme’, 2019.
3.115 National Apprenticeship Service. ‘Off-the-job training: myth vs fact’ [online], accessed 20/02/2020.
81
82
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.13 Quarterly apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2019/20) – England
Figure 3.15 Changes in engineering-related apprenticeship starts and achievements over time by level (2014/15 and 2018/19) –
England
180
Starts
Apprenticeship levy introduced
160
2
Sector subject area
120
1.5
100
80
1
60
40
0.5
Cumulative starts since May 2015 (millions)
Apprenticeships starts (thousands)
140
Intermediate
Construction,
planning and the
built environment
Engineering and
manufacturing
technologies
Q4
2014/15
Q1
Q2
Q3
2015/16 Full year
Q4
Q1
Q2
2016/17 Full year
Q3
Q4
2017/18 Full year
Q1
Q2
Q3
2018/19 Full year
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
Q1
Q2
0
Figure 3.14 Engineering-related apprenticeships as a share of
all apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2018/19) –
England
Information and
communication
technology
26.6%
26.3%
22.8%
22.5%
21.6%
Apprenticeship levels
499,900
108,010
2014/15
504,400
115,960
2015/16
375,760
494,900
111,550
2016/17
100,030
2017/18
393,380
103,620
2018/19
All apprenticeship starts
Engineering-related apprenticeships
Engineering-related as a share of all apprentices
Source: DfE, ‘Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements
2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2019.
All engineering-related sector subject areas includes: construction, planning and the built
environment; engineering and manufacturing technologies; and information and
communication technology.
To view apprenticeship starts by sector subject area, and the same table for achievements,
see Figure 3.14-3.14a in our Excel resource.
All engineeringrelated
apprenticeships
All sector
subject areas
Over the 5 year period up to the academic year 2018 to 2019,
the number of engineering-related apprenticeship starts
decreased by 4.1%. However, due to the overall decrease in
apprenticeship starts (down 21.3% over 5 years), engineering’s
share increased by 4.7 percentage points since 2014 to 2015,
which bodes well for the sector in future. The fact that this
proportion has been broadly stable between 2017 to 2018 and
2018 to 2019 may indicate a sustained increase in the relative
attractiveness of engineering-related apprenticeships.
There has been a large variation by sector subject area and
level, with all sector subject areas – both engineering-related
and other – seeing a large increase in higher level
apprenticeship starts and a steep decline in intermediate level
apprenticeship starts (Figure 3.15).
In 2018 to 2019, there were 22,530 starts in construction,
planning and the built environment, 59,970 in engineering and
manufacturing technologies, and 21,110 in ICT. ICT
apprenticeship starts observed the largest 5-year increase
across all levels (34.8%) (see Figure 3.15). Conversely, there
was a 19.0% decrease within the engineering and
manufacturing sector subject area.
Due to the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2016 to
2017, and reflecting the fact that trends in apprenticeship
achievements broadly follow the same pattern as starts,
achievements across all engineering-related subjects have
decreased dramatically over the past year, with a total of
55,080 in 2018 to 2019. This represents a drop of 16.7% from
2017 to 2018 (Figure 3.15).
Change over
1 year (%)
12,960
-12.3% ▼
Change over Achievements in
5 years (%)
2018/19 (No.)
-9.9% ▼
7,580
Change over
1 year (%)
Change over
5 years (%)
-15.3% ▼
18.8% ▲
6,270
9.2% ▲
65.0% ▲
3,210
-5.0% ▼
55.1% ▲
Higher
3,310
54.0% ▲
3,210.0% ▲
240
166.7% ▲
1,100.0% ▲
All levels
22,530
-0.6% ▼
23.2% ▲
11,030
-11.2% ▼
30.2% ▲
Intermediate
23,550
-13.7% ▼
-46.9% ▼
17,940
-31.3% ▼
-28.0% ▼
Advanced
33,170
12.3% ▲
13.2% ▲
17,530
-7.0% ▼
9.4% ▲
3,250
57.0% ▲
673.8% ▲
340
47.8% ▲
277.8% ▲
59,970
1.8% ▲
-19.0% ▼
35,810
-20.7% ▼
-12.7% ▼
3,980
6.1% ▲
-11.8% ▼
2,710
25.5% ▲
-1.1% ▼
Higher
Intermediate
2019/20 Reported to date
Source: DfE. ‘Apprenticeships and traineeships data 2014/15 to Q2 2019/20’data, 2020.
To view this figure with numbers, see Figure 3.13 in our Excel resource
Starts in
2018/19 (No.)
Advanced
All levels
20
0
Level
Achievements
Advanced
10,910
3.3% ▲
10.2% ▲
4,570
-13.6% ▼
-19.7% ▼
Higher
6,220
49.2% ▲
3,97.6% ▲
970
-7.6% ▼
148.7% ▲
All levels
21,110
14.2% ▲
34.8% ▲
8,240
-3.1% ▼
-6.6% ▼
Intermediate
40,490
-11.6% ▼
-36.0% ▼
28,230
-24.2% ▼
-17.1% ▼
Advanced
50,350
9.8% ▲
17.1% ▲
25,310
-8.0% ▼
6.4% ▲
Higher
12,780
52.3% ▲
622.0% ▲
5,150
275.9% ▲
930.0% ▲
All levels
103,610
3.6% ▲
-4.1% ▼
55,080
-16.7% ▼
-5.6% ▼
Intermediate
143,590
-11.0% ▼
-51.9% ▼
86,150
-42.2% ▼
-46.3% ▼
Advanced
174,730
5.1% ▲
-3.9% ▼
85,100
-23.6% ▼
-11.6% ▼
75,060
55.9% ▲
279.7% ▲
13,900
-11.9% ▼
220.3% ▲
393,380
4.7% ▲
-21.3% ▼
185,150
-33.0% ▼
-29.0% ▼
Higher
All levels
Source: DfE, ‘Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2020.
To view engineering-related apprenticeship starts and achievements from 2014/15, see Figure 3.15-3.15a in our Excel resource.
In 2018 to 2019, there was a 52.3%
increase in engineering-related
apprenticeship starts at levels 4
and above.
The drop in intermediate level apprenticeship starts was most
pronounced within the engineering and manufacturing subsector, where there was a 46.9% decrease over the past 5
years. The largest drop was observed between 2016 to 2017
and 2017 to 2018 after the introduction of the levy.
Across all engineering-related sector subject areas, there has
been a 622% increase in higher level starts over a 5-year
period, compared with a 36% decrease in intermediate starts.
At higher level, the number of starts increased more in
engineering-related subjects than the average across all
subjects. At intermediate level, there was a fall in the number
of engineering starts, but it wasn’t as great as the drop seen
across all sector subject areas.
This shift to higher level starts is primarily due to the
introduction of apprenticeship standards, which has increased
the number of higher apprenticeships available. Indeed, of the
227 engineering-related standards approved for delivery, 37%
are level 4 and above.3.116, 3.117 Furthermore, of those
engineering-related apprenticeships with starts in 2018 to
2019, just 6% of frameworks were at level 4 and above,
compared with 31% of apprenticeship standards.3.118 This is
because historically, apprenticeships tended to be pitched at a
lower level of learner, but the introduction of standards is seen
as both an increase in quality of apprenticeships at all levels
and an overall shift towards higher level apprenticeships to
upskill the UK workforce.
Along with the increased focus on higher technical
qualifications in STEM, the engineering sector should welcome
this upskilling. The 2017 Employer Skills Survey found that
manufacturing was the sector with the second highest
proportion of its workforce lacking full proficiency.3.119
Technical education is one way to address this skills gap.
Degree apprenticeships
The rise in higher apprenticeship starts has not been equal
across each level. Degree apprenticeships, in particular, have
seen a steep increase in popularity since the introduction of
the levy (Figure 3.16).
3.116 IfATE. ‘Apprenticeship standards’ data, 2020.
3.117 Correct as of 27/02/2020.
3.118 DfE. ‘Apprenticeships and traineeships 2018/19’ data, 2019.
3.119 DfE. ‘Employer Skills Survey 2017’, 2018.
83
84
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.16 Changes in engineering-related higher apprenticeship starts by level (2014/15 to 2018/19) – England
Starts in
2018/19 (No.)
2018/19
share of higher
apprenticeships (%)
Change over
1 year (%)
Change over
5 years (%)
1,257
38.0%
15.3% ▲
1,169.7% ▲
2,053
62.0%
94.4% ▲
–
Level 4 and 5
1,902
58.5%
41.3% ▲
451.3% ▲
Level 6 + (degree apprenticeship)
1,350
41.5%
87.8% ▲
Level
Construction, planning and the Level 4 and 5
built environment
Level 6 + (degree apprenticeship)
Engineering and
manufacturing technologies
Information and
communication technology
All engineering-related sector
subject areas
All sector subject areas
Level
Starts in
2018/19
Ranking Sector subject area
Framework/standard name
1
Business, administration and law
Senior leader (degree)
7
3,410
2
Business, administration and law
Chartered manager (degree)
6
2,850
3
Information and communication technology
Digital and technology solutions professional
(integrated degree)
6
1,508
1,828.6% ▲
4
Construction, planning and the built environment Chartered surveyor (degree)
6
1,192
Health, public services and care
6
1,034
Level 4 and 5
4,507
72.4%
57.9% ▲
261.1% ▲
5
Level 6 + (degree apprenticeship)
1,715
27.6%
30.7% ▲
–
6
Registered nurse - degree (NMC 2010)
Construction, planning and the built environment Civil engineer (degree)
6
623
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
Manufacturing engineer (degree)
6
280
Level 4 and 5
7,666
60.0%
44.9% ▲
353.1% ▲
7
Level 6 + (degree apprenticeship)
5,118
40.0%
65.8% ▲
7,211.4% ▲
8
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
Product design and development engineer (degree)
6
249
9
Health, public services and care
Healthcare science practitioner (degree)
6
248
10
Health, public services and care
Advanced clinical practitioner (degree)
7
247
Level 4 and 5
52,579
70.1%
41.0% ▲
167.2% ▲
Level 6 + (degree apprenticeship)
22,479
29.9%
106.7% ▲
23,562.1% ▲
Source: DfE. ‘Monthly apprenticeship starts by sector subject area, characteristics and degree apprenticeship 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2019.
‘-’ denotes that a 5-year comparison is unavailable.
To view engineering-related higher apprenticeship starts from 2014/15, see Figure 3.16 in our Excel resource
In the construction, planning and the built environment subject
area, degree apprenticeships are more popular than level 4 and
5 apprenticeships, accounting for 62.0% of all higher starts in
2018 to 2019. They have increased by 94.4% in the past year
alone. The increase in degree apprenticeship starts in
engineering-related areas was lower than across all sector
subject areas – both in the past year (65.8% for engineeringrelated compared with 106.7% for all areas) and over a 5 year
period. However, degree apprenticeship starts comprised a
larger proportion (40.0%) of all higher level starts in
engineering-related areas in 2018 to 2019 than they did for all
sector subject areas (29.9%).
What is a degree apprenticeship?
In recent years, there has been a policy drive towards degree
apprenticeships, which were announced as a concept in late
2014. A degree apprenticeship combines aspects of both
higher and vocational education, and is designed to test
occupational competence and academic learning. This can
be through a fully-integrated degree programme
(co-designed by employers and HE institutions) or a degree
plus a separate test of professional competence.
Due to the integrated degree, degree apprenticeships were
expected to prove highly attractive to students who may be
concerned about the debt inherent in a student loan that they
are likely to have to take out to fund a university degree.
This level of apprenticeship may be particularly relevant to the
engineering sector, with a 2019 Universities UK report on the
future of degree apprenticeships suggesting that these
qualifications will be crucial in addressing the engineering
skills shortage.3.120 Analysis of DfE data shows that in 2018 to
2019, 5 of the 10 degree apprenticeships with the highest
numbers of starts were in engineering-related areas
(Figure 3.17).
With established employers such as Rolls-Royce3.121 and the
RAF3.122 now providing degree apprenticeships that guarantee
employment in the engineering sector and progression
opportunities upon completion, it’s not surprising that these
new types of qualifications are becoming increasingly popular.
Engineering employers should take note and seek to
understand more about the skills gained by those successfully
completing one of these degrees and the benefits they may
provide in addition to a traditional undergraduate degree.
Figure 3.17 shows that there were 623 students starting a civil
engineering degree apprenticeship in 2018 to 2019, which is
11.2% of the number of civil engineering first degree entrants
into higher education (see Figure 4.5 in Chapter 4 for more
detail).
Although this is still a low proportion, degree apprenticeships
have only existed for 5 years. The data suggests that they will
cement their place even more firmly in the education
landscape, with provisional 2019 to 2020 DfE data showing a
further increase in engineering-related degree apprenticeship
starts.3.123
However, the reaction to degree apprenticeships within the FE
sector has not been unanimously positive. This is due to the
high numbers of starters on management courses and the
“rebadging of existing graduate schemes into
apprenticeships”, as highlighted in the 2017 to 2018 annual
Ofsted report.3.124 David Hughes, chief executive of the
Association of Colleges, has also raised this as a concern,
stating that “apprenticeships are for young people entering the
labour market… rather than giving people who are already
privileged in the system more skills that probably would have
been funded differently by employers in the past”.3.125
Figure 3.17 shows that in 2018 to 2019, the most popular
degree apprenticeship starts were the senior leader master’s
level apprenticeship and the chartered manager degree, which
would suggest that these concerns are not unfounded.
Source: DfE. ‘Monthly apprenticeship starts by sector subject area, characteristcs and degree apprenticeship 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2019.
To view the full list of degree apprenticeship starts from 2014/15, see ‘Figure 3.17-3.17a in our Excel resource.
Gender
In engineering-related areas, the demographic makeup of
apprentices has not changed significantly over the past 5
years, despite government commitments to increase numbers
of apprentices from diverse backgrounds.3.126 The engineering
sector in particular suffers from a lack of diversity, with women
making up just 12% of the current engineering workforce.3.127
Those from minority ethnic backgrounds also comprise 9% of
the workforce.3.128
Chapter 2 shows that girls are underrepresented in key STEM
subjects at A level and Chapter 4 shows that the same holds
true for higher education. However, within FE the problem is
particularly acute, with apprentices starting engineering
related courses being even less diverse.
Across all 3 engineering-related sector subject areas together,
there has been an increase in the female share of
apprenticeship starts since 2014 to 2015. However, in
engineering and manufacturing technologies the proportion
has not improved since 2015 to 2016. There were a far higher
proportion of women starting ICT apprenticeships than the
other areas: the proportion of women has risen by 3.9
percentage points since 2016 to 2017, but women still made up
less than 20% of ICT apprenticeship starts in 2018 to 2019
(Figure 3.18).
Figure 3.18 Female apprentices as a share of engineering-related sector subject area starts and all starts over time (2014/15 to
2018/19) – England
% female
Sector subject area
Figure 3.17 Top 10 degree apprenticeships ranked by number of starts (2018/19) – England
53.0%
52.8%
53.4%
17.5%
16.6%
15.9%
6.8%
8.0%
8.0%
2.2%
2.3%
3.0%
2014/15
2015/16
Construction, planning and the built environment
50.1%
18.4%
19.8%
7.4%
7.9%
4.7%
2016/17
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
49.0%
2017/18
6.4%
2018/19
Information and communication technology
All sector subject areas
Source: DfE. 'Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements 2014/15 to 2018/19' data, 2019.
To view this chart with numbers and the same time series for achievements see Figure 3.18 - 3.18a in our Excel resource.
3.120 Universities UK. ‘The future of degree apprenticeships’, 2019.
3.121 Rolls-Royce. ‘Engineering degree apprenticeship’ [online], accessed 08/04/2020.
3.122 RAF. ‘Apprentices in the RAF’ [online], accessed 08/04/2020.
3.123 DfE. ‘Apprenticeships and traineeships Q2 2019/20’ data, 2020.
3.124 Ofsted. ‘Ofsted 2017/18 annual report’, 2018.
3.125 FE Week. ‘Ofsted annual report warns apprenticeship levy being spent on graduate scheme rebadging’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
85
3.126 In ‘English Apprenticeships: Our 2020 Vision’, the government committed to a 20% increase in the proportion of apprentices from black and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds.
3.127 EngineeringUK. ‘Gender disparity in engineering’, 2018.
3.128 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
86
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Female underrepresentation is similarly apparent in the
construction industry, where only 15% of those working in the
sector are women.3.129 It is particularly acute among those
studying related apprenticeships – just 6.4% were women in
2018 to 2019. Despite the current levels being extremely low, it
is promising that the proportion of female construction
apprenticeship starts has risen by 4.2 percentage points since
2014 to 2015.
The proportion of women starting
engineering and manufacturing
technologies apprenticeships has not
increased since 2015 to 2016.
The low share of apprenticeship starts by women in
engineering-related areas in 2018 to 2019 shows that
concerted efforts to increase the number of women taking up
engineering3.130 have had limited success in the technical
education sector. This is further evidenced by the fact that the
proportion of female engineering and manufacturing
technologies apprentices has not risen significantly since 2014
to 2015, with the level hovering between 7% and 8% across the
entire 5 year period.
EngineeringUK’s 2019 Engineering Brand Monitor may shed
some light on why female representation is so low within
engineering-related apprenticeships. The survey showed that
it is possible girls have a pre-conceived idea about what an
engineering apprenticeship encompasses, with girls aged 11
to 19 being more likely than boys to think engineering is ‘dirty,
messy or greasy’. However, there was no statistically
significant difference between girls and boys in terms of
whether they would choose a vocational or academic route
into engineering, which indicates that the gender difference in
engineering apprenticeships may lie within the subject matter
itself, rather than the vocational nature of apprenticeships.
The Institute of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE) published a
report on female engineering apprentices in 2018, which
suggested that a significant minority (35%) of these students
were mistakenly identified as not being likely to be interested in
engineering-related careers, leading them to end up
discovering engineering as a ‘later option’ in the educational
pipeline.3.131 These young women had particularly negative
views of schools’ careers advice, and the research suggested
that focussed messaging should be targeted at girls in schools
at later stages, “emphasising messages likely to resonate with
the values, attitudes and broad interests of female students”.
It is clear, then, that far more could be done to encourage
women into engineering at each stage of education, and it is
imperative that any pre-existing stereotypes are not reinforced.
It is also crucial to ensure that women feel comfortable
undertaking an engineering apprenticeship once they have
successfully secured one.
Case study – Perspectives from a female
engineering apprentice
Heather Came, 1st year apprentice, Flybe Training
Academy, Exeter
Becoming an engineer has been a passion of mine for a
long time. Having come from an academically orientated
school, I realised that a practical job would suit me best.
My main reason for wanting to become an engineer is
because engineering consists of a variety of skills. You
never know what you’ll be challenged with next, which
keeps you constantly engaged. Another appeal is that the
industry is constantly developing and progressing.
Therefore, it will always be required. Engineers created
everything around us and will continue to do so, which is
why they will always be in demand.
Engineering has been, for a long time, a male dominated
industry. I am the only woman in my class, which can
sometimes be isolating, and at times I do feel that I am
treated differently because of my gender. This can be
disheartening and a considerable confidence knock.
However, I am not deterred by these factors, and I think
that more women should be encouraged to join the
engineering sector to address the imbalance.
Becoming an engineer allows you to make a difference
and contribute towards future innovations. The
satisfaction of turning a piece of material into an item with
a purpose or being able to fix something previously broken
and to see it working again, either on your own or as part of
a team, is priceless.
On a positive note, the increased numbers of apprenticeship
starts at higher levels across all sector subject areas (Figure
3.15, page 85) may increase the overall proportion of women in
engineering-related apprenticeships. This is because a far
greater proportion of women were on higher level engineeringrelated apprenticeships than lower levels (Figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19 Female apprentices as a share of engineeringrelated sector subject area starts by level (2018/19) – England
Construction, planning and the built environment
2.2%
8.9%
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
9.2%
Engineering-related achievements by women
6.0%
In 2018 to 2019, there were 3,730 engineering-related
apprenticeship achievements by women, making up 6.8%
of the total.
18.2%
Information and communication technology
This varied by sector subject area, with just 3.1% of
construction, planning and the built environment
achievements by women, 6.2% of engineering and
manufacturing achievements, and 14.3% of ICT
achievements.
7.5%
22.0%
24.0%
This represented an increased share from 2017 to 2018
levels for construction, planning and the built environment
(up by 1.0 percentage point), but a decrease for
engineering and manufacturing (down 1.2 percentage
points) and ICT (down 0.2 percentage point).
All sector subject areas
47.0%
51.2%
53.6%
Intermediate apprenticeship
This is true across all sector subject areas, but the difference
was particularly noticeable in both construction, planning and
the built environment, and engineering and manufacturing
technologies. Women accounted for 18.4% of all higher level
construction starts, compared with just 2.2% of intermediate
and 8.9% of advanced starts.
The fact that women were more likely to take up higher level
apprenticeships may mean that the gender disparity in
engineering-related areas will improve in future, as the shift
towards apprenticeships at level 4 and above continues.
18.4%
Ethnicity
Advanced apprenticeship
Higher apprenticeship
Source: DfE. 'Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements
2014/15 to 2018/19' data, 2019.
To view this figure with numbers and the same breakdown for achievements, see Figure 3.19
-3.19a in our Excel resource.
Figure 3.20 shows that the proportion of apprenticeship starts
by minority ethnic students in both construction (5.4%) and
engineering and manufacturing (7.9%) was extremely low in
2018 to 2019. This compares with 12.5 % of all apprenticeship
starts, showing that engineering lags behind other areas in
attracting students from minority ethnic backgrounds.
Figure 3.20 Minority ethnic apprentices as a share of engineering-related sector subject area starts and all starts over time
(2014/15 to 2018/19) – England
19.1%
In 2018 to 2019, women were much
more likely to start higher level
engineering-related apprenticeships
than lower levels.
% from minority ethnic backgrounds
The fact that just 7.9% of engineering and manufacturing
technologies starts were by women in 2018 to 2019 is
particularly stark when you consider that women accounted
for half (50.1%) of overall apprenticeship starts in 2018 to 2019.
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
15.0%
17.3%
17.3%
11.3%
11.4%
15.8%
12.5%
10.7%
6.7%
4.2%
2014/15
10.6%
6.3%
6.4%
4.1%
4.4%
2015/16
Construction, planning and the built environment
7.1%
5.1%
2016/17
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
2017/18
7.9%
5.4%
2018/19
Information and communication technology
All sector subject areas
Source: DfE. 'Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements 2014/15 to 2018/19' data, 2019.
To view engineering-related starts and achievements by ethnicity since 2014/15, see Figure 3.20-3.20a in our Excel resource.
3.129 House of Commons. ‘Women and the economy’, 2020.
3.130 Such as, for example, the Women in Science and Engineering (WISE campaign).
3.131 IMechE. ‘Never too late: profiling female engineering apprentices’, 2018.
87
88
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Students from minority ethnic backgrounds were better
represented in ICT, comprising 19.1% of all starts in 2018 to
2019, which was a 1.8 percentage point rise from 2017 to 2018,
and an increase of 4.1 percentage points on 2014 to 2015
figures.
While construction, planning and the built environment and
engineering and manufacturing have slightly improved their
take up by students from minority ethnic backgrounds
(increasing by 1.2 percentage points in both subject areas
since 2014 to 2015), these rises were in line with those
observed across apprenticeships more widely (1.8 percentage
points increase). This means that neither has increased its
relative attractiveness to students from minority ethnic
backgrounds compared with other areas.
This is in stark contrast to the high proportion of engineering
and technology students in higher education (HE) from
minority ethnic backgrounds, which is explored in more detail
in Chapter 4. Apprentices and higher education students are
different, but those responsible for technical education in the
engineering sector could look to HE to try to understand how to
improve take up by students from minority ethnic
backgrounds, as they are overrepresented in HE.
The proportion of engineering and manufacturing
apprenticeship starts by minority ethnic students is, however,
in line with employment in the engineering sector. Of those
working in engineering occupations within the engineering
sector, just 8.5% are from minority ethnic backgrounds.3.132
This means that the ethnic make-up of engineering and
manufacturing apprentices broadly reflects the wider
underrepresentation of minority ethnic people within the
engineering workforce in the UK.
There was also some variation in the levels at which
apprentices from minority ethnic backgrounds were likely to
start. In construction, planning and the built environment and
ICT they were more likely to start higher level apprenticeships
(9.5% and 21.1% of all starts respectively). However, in the
engineering and manufacturing technology subject area,
minority ethnic students were more likely to be on lower level
apprenticeships (9.6% of all intermediate starts).
In 2018 to 2019, students from minority
ethnic backgrounds were more likely to
start lower level apprenticeships in
engineering and manufacturing
technologies than their white peers.
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.21 Minority ethnic apprentices as a share of
engineering-related sector subject area starts by level (2018/19)
– England
Construction, planning and the built environment
4.4%
5.5%
9.5%
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
9.6%
6.9%
7.3%
Information and communication technology
Engineering-related apprenticeship
achievements by those from minority
ethnic backgrounds
In 2018 to 2019, there were 7,550 engineering-related
apprenticeship achievements by those from minority
ethnic backgrounds, making up 6.9% of all achievements.
There was a large variation in achievements by sector
subject area, with minority ethnic students accounting for
13.9% of those in ICT, 6.1% in engineering and
manufacturing and 4.2% in construction, planning and the
built environment.
The proportion of such achievements by minority ethnic
students in each subject area has declined compared with
the year before, with percentage point decreases of 0.1 for
construction, planning and the built environment, 0.3 in
engineering and manufacturing, and 2.6 for ICT.
16.7%
18.9%
Age
21.1%
Figure 3.22 Engineering-related apprenticeship starts by age
group (2014/15 and 2018/19) – England
All sector subject areas
Construction, planning and the built envrionment
11.7%
2014/15 60.4%
12.1%
30.1%
2018/19 48.9%
9.6%
33.8%
17.3%
15.0%
Intermediate apprenticeship
Advanced apprenticeship
Higher apprenticeship
Source: DfE. 'Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements
2014/15 to 2018/19' data, 2019.
To view this figure with numbers, a full ethnicity breakdown and the same breakdown for
apprenticeship achievements, see Figure 3.21-3.21a in our Excel resource.
This is particularly concerning for engineering and
manufacturing, given that across all subject areas, those
from minority ethnic backgrounds were more likely to start
higher level apprenticeships. The reduction in intermediate
level engineering and manufacturing starts in 2018 to 2019
(Figure 3.15) exacerbates this issue. Any further declines in
lower level starts could be problematic for those from minority
ethnic backgrounds, because they will have fewer
apprenticeships to choose from, and for engineering and
manufacturing as a whole as it may reduce diversity.
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
2014/15 37.3%
33.4%
2018/19 40.2%
29.3%
34.3%
25.5%
Information and communication technology
2014/15 40.6%
2018/19 22.1%
34.3%
25.1%
42.6%
35.2%
All sector subject areas
2014/15 25.2%
32.0%
2018/19 24.8%
29.5%
Under 19
19-24
42.8%
45.7%
25+
Source: DfE. 'Apprenticeship demographic and sector subject area: starts and achievements
2014/15 to 2018/19' data, 2019.
To view this chart with numbers, levels and historical data for both starts and achievements,
see Figure 3.22-3.22a in our Excel resource.
3.132 EngineeringUK. ‘2019 Excel resource’ data, 2019.
89
Apprentices in engineering-related areas
were younger than the wider
apprenticeship cohort, but there has
been a shift towards older apprentices in
construction, planning and the built
environment, and ICT since the
introduction of the levy.
Figure 3.22 shows that apprentices in engineering-related
areas tend to be much younger than apprentices in general. In
2018 to 2019, nearly half (48.9%) of construction apprentices
and 40.2% of engineering and manufacturing technologies
apprentices were under 19, compared with just one quarter
(24.8%) of apprentices from all sector subject areas. And
whereas nearly half (45.7%) of all apprentices were 25 and over,
only one quarter (25.5%) of engineering and manufacturing,
and 17.3% of construction apprentices were.
Despite apprentices in engineering-related areas being
younger than the overall cohort, there has been a shift over
time. Now, a far higher proportion of apprenticeship starts in
both ICT and construction, planning and the built environment
are older learners than in previous years. In construction and
ICT, there were increases of 7.7 and 10.1 percentage points
respectively in the share of apprenticeship starts by people
aged 25 and over between 2014 to 2015 and 2018 to 2019.
The age profile of those starting engineering and
manufacturing apprenticeships has seen less change. There
has, however been a minor shift, with slightly more starts by
those aged under 25 (a 3.8 percentage point increase overall)
and fewer starts by those aged over 25.
This finding is particularly relevant in the context of the broader
apprenticeship landscape. There are widespread concerns
that the apprenticeship levy has caused employers to rebadge
existing training as apprenticeships and convert their existing
graduate and trainee and professional development
programmes into apprenticeships.3.133
However, the comparatively young age profile of engineering
and manufacturing apprentices could indicate that many of
those undertaking apprenticeships in the sector are at the start
of their career rather than existing engineers. This is
encouraging, given the need to attract more students into the
engineering pipeline.
The increased share of older learners starting construction
and ICT apprenticeships is likely to be due to the rapid
expansion of higher level apprenticeships, and the increase in
starts in both advanced and higher level apprenticeships
(Figure 3.15), which tend to be undertaken by older learners.
3.133 CIPD, ‘Addressing employer underinvestment in training’, 2019.
90
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Area
Figure 3.24 Apprentices from the most deprived areas as a share of engineering-related sector subject area starts by level
(2018/19) – England
25.5%
Figure 3.23 Engineering-related apprenticeship starts by sector subject area and region (2018/19) – England
24.0%
North
East
North
West
Yorkshire
and The
Humber
Construction,
planning and the
built environment
8.6%
16.2%
13.7%
9.6%
8.9%
9.1%
7.0%
13.3%
13.4%
22,330
Engineering and
manufacturing
technologies
6.0%
14.5%
12.3%
9.5%
13.9%
8.7%
6.2%
15.1%
13.7%
59,320
Information and
communication
technology
4.7%
11.5%
8.7%
7.1%
10.1%
9.4%
17.6%
16.2%
14.7%
20,980
All engineeringrelated starts
6,470
14,660
12,190
9,300
12,350
9,180
8,960
15,300
14,220
103,610
2018/19 share
of engineeringrelated starts
6.2%
14.1%
11.8%
9.0%
11.9%
8.9%
8.6%
14.8%
13.7%
Sector subject areas
East
Midlands
West
Midlands
East of
England
London
South
East
South
West
England
total
Source: DfE. ‘Apprenticeships geography and sector subject area: starts and achievements 2018 to 2019’ data, 2019.
To view this table with numbers and data from 2014/2015, see Figure 3.23 in our Excel resource.
Although London had the highest
number of engineering employees, it had
the second lowest proportion of
engineering and manufacturing
technologies apprenticeship starts.
There was a large variation in engineering related
apprenticeship starts by region, with the North West
accounting for the highest proportion of construction starts
(16.2%). The South East accounted for the highest proportion
of engineering and manufacturing technologies starts (15.1%),
and London had the highest proportion (17.6%) of ICT
apprenticeship starts (Figure 3.23).
We might expect the number of engineering related
apprenticeships to reflect the number of engineering jobs
available in each region and the proportion of the overall
employment in each region that is within the engineering
footprint. Analysis of InterDepartmental Business Register
(IDBR) data3.134 shows that the highest number of engineering
employees – according to the Engineering Footprint explained
in the 2018 EngineeringUK report3.135 – are located in London
and the South East. So it is therefore surprising that London
has the second lowest proportion of engineering and
manufacturing technologies apprenticeship starts (6.2%) and
the lowest proportion of construction starts (7.0%). It may be
that the majority of these London-based roles are professional
engineering roles and therefore not suited to engineering
apprentices. However, there may be scope to increase the
number of engineering related apprenticeships available for
students in the capital.
When noting the location of apprenticeship starts, it is
important to consider potential ‘cold spots’ where it may be
difficult for prospective learners to find a suitable
apprenticeship. The Higher Education Commission (HEC)
recently released a report on degree apprenticeships
suggesting that apprenticeship cold spots – areas where
students have to travel a long distance to find an opportunity –
are likely to be in areas of overall employment cold spots,
meaning that social mobility issues are amplified.3.136 The
report recommended that “disadvantaged young people,
especially from educational and employment cold spots,
should be eligible for maintenance support in line with the
support offered to university students, so that they can access
degree apprenticeship opportunities around the country”.
Apprenticeships and social mobility
Because apprenticeships are undertaken by people from a
broad age range, it isn’t possible to use the measures of
disadvantage that are applicable to young people at school.
Instead, the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) is used to
categorise apprentices into ‘deprivation quintiles’ based on
where they live.3.137
Figure 3.24 shows the proportions of engineering-related
apprenticeship starts by those from the lowest deprivation
quintile (quintile 1, representing the most deprived areas). If
apprenticeship starts were distributed equally across each
IMD quintile and level of study, we would expect to see 20% of
starts by those in the most deprived areas. Percentages higher
than 20 mean, therefore, that those from deprived areas are
overrepresented, with the converse also being true.
22.6%
21.2%
15.6%
17.0%
15.6%
Intermediate apprenticeships
16.5%
16.5%
11.7%
11.7%
Construction, planning and
the built environmentt
15.4%
Engineering and
manufacturing technologies
Advanced apprenticeships
Information and
communication technology
All sector subject areas
Higher apprenticeships
Source: DfE. ‘Apprenticeship starts by IMD Quintile, sector subject area and level 2018/19 (FOI request)’ data, 2019.
Figure 3.24 shows that those starting engineering-related
apprenticeships in 2018 to 2019 were less likely than the
overall apprenticeship cohort to come from the most deprived
areas, especially within the ICT sector subject area.
There was also a large variation by level. Those starting
intermediate apprenticeships in construction, planning and the
built environment, and engineering and manufacturing
technologies were far more likely to live in deprived areas than
those starting higher apprenticeships. This means that the
decline in intermediate apprenticeships may have severe
implications for those who are in real need of work-based
learning.
Those from the most deprived areas
were underrepresented in higher level
engineering-related apprenticeships in
2018 to 2019.
With the introduction of T levels (at level 3) and the shift
towards higher level apprenticeships, it is important that those
from the most disadvantaged backgrounds don’t get left
behind, facing a lack of available training at appropriate levels.
It will also be crucial to ensure those from the most deprived
areas are encouraged to pursue engineering apprenticeships
at level 3 and above, as they are currently underrepresented at
higher levels.
Apprenticeship achievement rates
Since 2014 to 2015, apprenticeship achievement rates have
fallen, both in engineering-related sector subject areas and
across all apprenticeships. In engineering-related areas,
achievement rates were highest for intermediate ICT
apprenticeships (82.1% achievement rate) and lowest for
higher level ICT apprenticeships (52.6%).
Figure 3.25 Changes in apprenticeship achievement rates
within sector subject areas and levels, over time (2014/15 to
2018/19) – England
Sector
subject area
Construction,
planning and
the built
environment
Engineering
and
manufacturing
technologies
Level
Intermediate
All sector
subject areas
Change
over
1 year
(%p)
Change
over
5 years
(%p)
61.2%
-2.8%p▼
-5.6%p▼
Advanced
74.1%
-3.2%p▼
-3.2%p▼
Higher
60.1%
12.0%p▲
-7.4%p▼
All levels
64.4%
-2.4%p▼
-4.8%p▼
Intermediate
68.9%
-1.0%p▼
-2.9%p▼
Advanced
74.0%
-0.8%p▼
-3.6%p▼
Higher
68.3%
-1.6%p▼
-9.7%p▼
All levels
71.2%
-0.7%p▼
-1.1%p▼
Intermediate
82.1%
11.8%p▲
5.8%p▲
63.9%
-9.7%p▼ -12.6%p▼
Information and Advanced
communication
Higher
technology
All levels
All
engineeringrelated sector
subject areas
Achievement
rates in
2018/19 (%)
52.6% -12.2%p▼ -17.0%p▼
67.2%
-4.4%p▼
-8.4%p▼
Intermediate
67.7%
-0.6%▼
-5.3%▼
Advanced
72.0%
-2.9%▼
-6.5%▼
Higher
56.1%
-7.9%▼
-16.3%▼
All levels
71.5%
0.7%▲
-3.6%▼
Intermediate
64.0%
-3.0%▼
-7.2%p▼
Advanced
66.2%
-2.0%p▼
-5.4%p▼
Higher
59.7%
-3.9%p▼
-8.8%p▼
All levels
64.7%
-2.7%▼
-5.7%p▼
Source: DfE. ‘National achievement rate tables 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2016 to 2020.
To view achievement rates from 2014/15, see Figure 3.25 in our Excel resource.
3.134 ONS. ‘UK business; activity, size and location: 2018’ custom analysis of IDBR data, 2018.
3.135 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering UK: The state of engineering 2018’, 2018.
3.136 Higher Education Commission. ‘Degree apprenticeships – up to standard?’, 2019.
3.137 T
aken from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Index of Multiple Deprivation is ‘the official measure of relative deprivation in England’ and is part of
a suite of outputs that form the Indices of Deprivation (IoD).
91
92
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
In construction, planning and the built environment, and in
engineering and manufacturing, advanced level
apprenticeships had the highest achievement rates (74.1% and
74.0% respectively) – something that was also seen when all
sector subject areas were considered together. The difference
in achievement rates between levels were more pronounced
for construction, planning and the built environment, and ICT,
than it was for all sector subject areas.
The drop in achievement rates over the past year, and indeed 5
years, is due to the introduction of apprenticeship standards,
which have far lower achievement rates than the old
apprenticeship frameworks.
Figure 3.26 Achievement rates in engineering-related
frameworks and standards (2018/19) – England
Construction, planning and the built environment
65.5%
37.9%
Engineering and manufacturing technologies
72.0%
59.8%
Information and communication technology
80.2%
50.8%
All sector subject areas
68.7%
46.6%
Framework
Standard
Source: DfE. ‘National achievement rate tables 2018/19’ data, 2020.
In 2018 to 2019, apprenticeship
standards had considerably lower
achievement rates than apprenticeship
frameworks.
Figure 3.26 shows that across all subject areas, achievement
rates are considerably lower for the new apprenticeship
standards, especially in construction (27.6 percentage points
difference in achievement rates between frameworks and
standards) and ICT (29.4 percentage points difference). This
raises some cause for concern, given that all new
apprenticeships will be standards from August 2020. While far
fewer had completed apprenticeship standards than
frameworks in the 2018 to 2019 calculations, there were
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
almost 65,000, meaning that the success rates should be
judged as a true test of the new style of apprenticeship.
If these rates continue, there will be large swathes of
apprentices in engineering-related areas who either fail to
complete their course at all or spend far longer doing so than is
necessary. This could be a significant blow to the engineering
pipeline at a time when a skilled workforce is crucial.
3.8 – Apprenticeship trends in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland
Up to this point, this chapter has exclusively covered
apprenticeships and technical education in England, as the
reforms primarily affected England. Skills and apprenticeship
provision are devolved to the individual nations of the UK.
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland elected to continue with
apprenticeship frameworks instead of introducing
apprenticeship standards, and meeting the demands of
employers through the existing apprenticeship
qualifications.3.138 However, the apprenticeship levy does apply
across all nations of the UK, with each devolved administration
receiving a proportional share of the funds.
This section will discuss modern apprenticeships only, as
Skills Development Scotland publishes data only on modern
apprentices and they provide the closest comparison to the
apprenticeships discussed in the England section.
In Scotland, there were 9,353 engineering-related
apprenticeship starts in 2018 to 2019. These made up a higher
proportion of overall starts than they did in England, with 34.3%
of all starts in 2018 to 2019 on engineering-related
apprenticeships (compared with 26.3% in England).
Figure 3.27 Engineering-related apprenticeships as a share of
all apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2018/19) –
Scotland
Scotland
Skills Development Scotland (the body in charge of Scottish
Apprenticeships) will continue to fund apprenticeship training
in Scotland and the Scottish government will receive the
Scottish share of the apprenticeship levy (£239 million in 2019
to 2020).3.139
Scotland recently introduced an ‘apprenticeship board’, which
ensures there is a demand-led, responsive and adaptive work
based learning system for the employers and the Scottish
economy.3.140 This board means that there are some
similarities with the English system (which has the Institute for
Apprenticeships and Technical Education).
While England introduced a target of 3 million apprenticeship
starts by 2020, the Scottish government set an ambition of
reaching 30,000 apprenticeship starts annually by 2020.3.141
There are 3 main types of apprenticeship available in
Scotland:3.142
• Foundation apprenticeships – to help young people gain
real-world work experience while still at school. Young
students take these apprentices in S4 or S5 (the equivalent
of years 10 and 11 in England and Wales, when students
would be studying for GCSEs – see Chapter 1 for more detail
on education levels in different UK nations).
• Modern apprenticeships – for employers to develop their
workforce by training new staff and upskilling existing
employees. These apprenticeships are open to anyone over
the age of 16, with the funding provision prioritised for 16 to
24 year olds.
• Graduate apprenticeships – providing work based learning
up to Master’s degree level for new and existing employees.
These apprenticeships are primarily taken by those already
in the workforce in Scotland.
These different types of provision ensure that all learners are
catered for within the technical education sector in Scotland
and aim to attract increasing numbers of young people and
professionals alike, including those studying engineering.
3.138 SQA. ‘A guide to apprenticeships in the UK’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
3.139 Fair Work, Employability and Skills Directorate. ‘Scottish apprenticeships: seven things you need to know’ [online], accessed 05/04/2020.
3.140 Skills Development Scotland. ‘The Scottish apprenticeship advisory board’ [online], accessed 27/02/2020.
3.141 Scottish Government. ‘30,000 Modern Apprenticeships by 2020’ [online], accessed 05/04/2020.
3.142 Skills Development Scotland. ‘Apprenticeships’ [online], accessed 27/02/2020.
93
In Scotland, engineering-related
apprenticeships accounted for 34.3%
of all starts in 2018 to 2019.
35.2%
34.7%
33.1%
In terms of gender disparity, Scotland performs worse than
England. Just 3.8% of all engineering-related starts in Scotland
were by women in 2018 to 2019. Furthermore, that share has
not changed significantly since 2014 to 2015. While the
absolute number of women taking up engineering
apprenticeships in Scotland has risen, this has been in line with
the increase in apprentices overall –proportionally the
percentage of apprentices who are women has remained
relatively static.
Figure 3.28 Female apprentices as a share of engineeringrelated apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2018/19) –
Scotland
3.8%
3.8%
3.4%
3.4%
7,994
8,539
9,236
9,423
3.3%
9,353
34.3%
31.7%
271
2014/15
25,247
7,994
2014/15
25,818
8,539
2015/16
27,145
26,262
9,236
2016/17
9,423
27,270
9,353
2017/18
2018/19
All framework starts
All engineering-related framework starts
Percentage engineering-related framework starts
Source: Skills Development Scotland. ‘Modern apprenticeship statistics Q4 2018/19’
data, 2019.
In Scotland, apprenticeships are not broken down by sector subject area, so we have
determined whether an apprenticeship is engineering-related based on the framework.
To view engineering-related apprenticeship starts and achievements by framework and level
from 2014/15, see Figure 3.27-3.27a in our Excel resource.
Furthermore, in Scotland there has been no real decline in
engineering-related apprenticeships – or apprenticeships
overall – indicating that the levy has not affected Scotland in
the same way as it has England. On the contrary, engineering
apprenticeship starts have increased by almost 1,500 over a
5-year period, which is a 16.8% rise since 2014 to 2015. The
rate of increase for engineering-related starts has been faster
than the overall increase in apprenticeship starts in Scotland,
meaning that Scotland now has a higher proportion of
engineering apprentices than 5 years ago. However, the share
has marginally decreased since its highest point in 2016 to
2017 (Figure 3.27).
324
2015/16
315
2016/17
359
314
2017/18
2018/19
All engineering-related framework starts
Female engineering-related starts
Percentage female
Source: Skills development Scotland. ‘Modern apprenticeship statistics Q4 2018/19’
data, 2019.
To view female apprentices starting engineering-related frameworks by age group and from
2014/15, see Figure 3.28 in our Excel resource.
The picture is similar for engineering apprenticeship
achievements in Scotland. In 2018 to 2019, just 3.2% of these
were by women, compared with 37.7% of all apprenticeship
achievements.3.143, 3.144
Apprenticeship achievement rates in Scotland
In 2018 to 2019, engineering-related frameworks in
Scotland had a 78.2% achievement rate, compared
with 76.5% for all apprenticeships. This represented a
decrease of 3.7 percentage points from 2017 to 18.
However, engineering-related achievement rates in
Scotland were higher than in England, where the
achievement rate in engineering-related areas was
only 71.5% (see Figure 3.25).
There was a minor difference by gender, with an average
achievement rate of 78.8% for women in engineeringrelated areas, and 73.3% for men.3.145
Not only are there gender differences between Scottish and
English engineering apprentices, but the age profile differs too.
A lower proportion (16.0%) of Scottish engineering apprentices
were aged 20 to 24 than in England, and there were more adult
apprentices in Scotland (Figure 3.29).
3.143 Skills Development Scotland. ‘Modern Apprenticeship statistics, Quarter 4 2018-19’ data, 2019.
3.144 For a full analysis of engineering-related starts and achievements by women in Scotland, please see Figure 3.28a in our Excel resource.
3.145 Figure 3.28a in our Excel resource also contains more information on achievement rates in Scotland.
94
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Figure 3.29 Engineering-related apprenticeship starts by age
group (2018/19) – Scotland
16-19
No.
20-24
%
No.
All
ages
25+
%
No.
%
No.
All
engineeringrelated
frameworks
4,219 45.1%
1,497 16.0%
All
frameworks
11,720 43.0%
6,710 24.6% 8,840 32.4% 27,270
3,622 38.7%
9,353
Source: Skills Development Scotland. ‘Modern apprenticeship statistics Q4 2018/19’ data,
2019.
To view this table with engineering-related frameworks, see Figure 3.29 in our Excel
resource.
In Wales, there were 5,175 engineering-related apprenticeship
starts in 2018 to 2019, a 6.7% increase since 2014 to 2015.
There was a large rise in both engineering-related and overall
apprenticeship starts between 2016 to 2017 and 2017 to 2018,
which meant that the 2018 to 2019 numbers were significantly
lower than the year before. As a share of overall starts,
engineering-related apprenticeships have decreased over a
5-year period, so that in 2018 to 2019 they made up 19.9% of
the overall cohort – a lower share than in both England and
Scotland.
Figure 3.30 Engineering-related apprenticeships as a share of
all apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2018/19) – Wales
24.9%
20.8%
In contrast to England, where those aged 25 and over made up
the highest proportion of apprentices overall, Scotland’s wider
apprenticeship cohort tended to be younger. Engineering
apprentices made up a large proportion (41%) of the entire 25
and over cohort and a higher proportion of all engineering
apprentices fell into that age category. This could indicate that
in Scotland, many people further along in their careers are
choosing to study an engineering apprenticeship, either as a
way of re-training or upskilling. The different types of
apprenticeships available in Scotland also account for some of
this difference, with older learners more likely to embark on
graduate apprenticeships as opposed to modern
apprenticeships.
Wales
In a similar manner to Scotland, the Welsh government will
continue to administer its apprenticeship programme using
the existing Welsh apprenticeship provider network and the
Welsh government has stated that their approach to
apprenticeships will be “driven by the needs of the Welsh
economy and communities”.3.146
The Welsh government has committed
to increasing apprenticeships in skills
shortage areas such as engineering.
20.7%
In 2018 to 2019, engineering-related apprenticeships
accounted for 27.0% of foundation, 19.4% of apprenticeship
and just 4.2% of higher starts in Wales. Overall numbers of
higher starts remained low in Wales. However, a 2018 report by
Estyn confirmed that “the Welsh government plans to increase
the number of higher apprenticeships in science, technology,
engineering and mathematics by 2019”. 3.151 The landscape
could therefore change significantly, with more higher level
engineering-related starts in future.
Figure 3.31 Engineering-related and all apprenticeship starts
by level (2018/19) – Wales
20.5%
19.9%
Figure 3.32 Female apprentices as a share of engineeringrelated apprenticeship starts over time (2014/15 to 2018/19) –
Wales
7.5%
7.0%
6.1%
5.6%
4.0%
4,850
4,925
4,985
6,420
5,175
11,570
10,035
195
2014/15
305
275
2015/16
2016/17
450
2017/18
390
2018/19
All engineering-related apprenticeship starts
19,505
23,690
24,115
31,360
Female engineering-related starts
25,945
4,340
2,710
4,850
2014/15
4,925
4,985
2015/16
2016/17
Engineering-related apprenticeship starts
6,420
2017/18
5,175
2018/19
All apprenticeship starts
Engineering-related as a share of all apprenticeship starts
Source: Stats Wales. ‘Learning programmes for foundation apprenticeships, apprenticeships
and higher apprenticeships 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2020.
There is no Information and communication technology data for 2018 to 2019. There are
some IT courses included in Business administration apprenticeships, but these are not
included under engineering related apprenticeship starts.
Numbers are runded to the nearest 5.
To view apprenticeship starts and leavers by sector subject area and from 2014/15,
see Figure 3.30-3.30a in our Excel resource.
In 2017, the Welsh government committed to delivering
100,000 apprenticeship places by 20223.147 and recent
evidence suggests it is on course to meet that target.3.148 In the
2017 policy plan, the government also committed to increasing
numbers of apprentices in ‘skills shortage areas’ such as
engineering, and generally increasing STEM apprenticeships
more widely.3.149
Welsh apprenticeship levels are in line with those in England,
with slightly different naming conventions. Level 2
apprenticeships are called foundation, level 3 are simply called
apprenticeships, and level 4 and above apprenticeships are
called highers.
3.146 Business Wales. ‘Apprenticeship levy’ [online], accessed 05/04/2020.
3.147 Welsh Government. ‘Aligning the apprenticeship model to the needs of the Welsh economy’, 2017.
3.148 Business News Wales. ‘Target of creating 100,000 apprenticeships in Wales set to be exceeded’ [online], accessed 14/04/2020.
3.149 Welsh Government. ‘Aligning the apprenticeship model to the needs of the Welsh economy’, 2017.
95
The decreased share may be due to the introduction and
recent rise in take-up of higher level apprenticeships in Wales.
The first higher apprenticeship starts in engineering-related
areas were in 2017 to 2018, but these haven’t been taken up as
much as higher level apprenticeships in other areas.3.150
2,245
215
All engineering-related
sector subject areas
Foundation apprenticeships (level 2)
All sector subject areas
Apprenticeships (level 3)
Higher apprenticeships (level 4+)
Source: Stats Wales. ‘Learning programmes for foundation apprenticeships, apprenticeships
and higher apprenticeships 2018/19’ data, 2020.
To view apprenticeship starts and leavers by sector subject area, level and from 2014/15,
see Figure 3.31-3.31a in our Excel resource.
While engineering’s share of all apprenticeship starts may be
lower in Wales, the region has been more successful than
England and Scotland in increasing engineering’s
attractiveness to women. In 2018 to 2019, there were 390
engineering-related starts by women, accounting for 7.5% of
the total numbers.
Higher level engineering-related
apprenticeship starts accounted for just
4.2% of all higher level starts in Wales in
2018 to 2019.
Percentage female
Source: Stats Wales. ‘Learning programmes for foundation apprenticeships, apprenticeships
and higher apprenticeships 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2020.
There is no information and communication technology data for 2018 to 2019. There are
some IT courses included in business administration apprenticeships, but these are not
included under engineering related apprenticeship starts.
Female engineering related starts do not include information and communication technology.
The absolute numbers involved were extremely low, but the
increased share – and there has been a steady rise each year
since 2014 to 2015 – indicates that Wales is moving in the right
direction.
Apprenticeship achievement rates in Wales
In 2018 to 2019, 83% of leavers in apprenticeships at all
levels successfully completed their framework in
engineering and manufacturing technologies. This was
the same proportion as in 2017 to 2018 but a decrease of 4
percentage points since 2014 to 2015.
For those on construction, planning and the built
environment apprenticeships, 79% successfully
completed their framework in 2018 to 2019. This
represented a decrease of 3 percentage points on 2017 to
2018 figures but only a 1 percentage point decrease from
2014 to 2015.
3.150 S
tats Wales. ‘Learning programmes for foundation apprenticeships, apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2020.
3.151 Estyn. ‘Higher apprenticeships in work-based learning’, 2018.
96
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland, sector subject figures are only published
for those participating on apprenticeships, rather than starts or
achievements. The levels of apprenticeship are similar to
England, with higher level apprenticeships at level 4 and above.
Its level 3 apprenticeships are similar to advanced
apprenticeships in England and modern apprenticeships in
Scotland. Northern Ireland also has level 2 apprenticeships,
which are similar to foundation apprenticeships in Wales and
intermediate apprenticeships in England. In Northern Ireland,
some apprentices are also referred to as on a ‘level 2/3
apprenticeship’ if they are pursuing a level 2 qualification but
are working towards a targeted level 3 outcome.
Encouragingly, engineering apprentices make up the majority
of all participants on apprenticeships in Northern Ireland, with
5,412 of the 8,812 apprentices within engineering-related areas
in 2019. The most popular engineering related apprenticeship
across all levels was the ‘electrotechnical’ apprenticeship, with
1,497 participants in 2019.
In 2019, engineering-related
apprenticeships accounted for 61.4%
of all apprenticeship participants in
Northern Ireland.
Figure 3.33 Apprenticeship participation by framework, level and gender (2019) – Northern Ireland
Framework
Level 2
Level 2/3
Level 3
All levels
Female
Total
Female
Total
Female
Total
Total
% Female
Construction
4
461
–
4
–
–
465
0.9%
Construction crafts
–
–
–
74
1
234
308
0.3%
Construction technical
–
–
–
–
–
32
32
0.0%
Electrical and electronic servicing
–
12
–
2
–
2
16
0.0%
Electrical distribution and transmission
engineering
–
–
1
35
–
8
43
2.3%
Electrical power engineering
1
11
–
–
–
–
11
9.1%
Electrotechnical
–
–
1
358
6
1,139
1,497
0.5%
Engineering
3
333
21
279
4
229
841
3.3%
136
345
3
4
145
297
646
44.0%
Furniture production
1
24
–
–
1
7
31
6.5%
Heating, ventialllation, air conditioning
and refridgeration
–
38
–
1
–
21
60
0.0%
IT user
2
4
1
2
3
9
15
40.0%
IT and telecoms professional
6
23
–
–
12
83
106
17.0%
Land based service engineering
–
5
–
–
–
25
30
0.0%
Food manufacture
Light vehicle body and paint operations
–
–
–
11
–
35
46
0.0%
Mechanical engineering services
(plumbing)
1
235
–
57
1
183
475
0.4%
Print production
–
–
–
–
–
21
21
0.0%
Printing industry
2
28
–
–
–
–
28
7.1%
Vehicle body and paint
–
71
–
3
–
–
74
0.0%
Vehicle fitting
–
8
–
–
–
–
8
0.0%
Vehicle maintenance and repair
1
143
6
288
3
194
625
1.6%
Vehicle parts
All engineering related frameworks
Total
Engineering-related apprenticeships
as a share of all frameworks
–
4
3
15
–
15
34
8.8%
157
1,745
36
1,133
176
2,534
5,412
6.8%
1,009
3,465
108
1,278
1,228
4,065
8,812
26.6%
15.6%
50.4%
33.3%
88.7%
14.3%
62.3%
61.4%
In Northern Ireland, just 6.8% of
apprenticeship participants on
engineering-related frameworks were
women in 2019.
Figure 3.33 shows that in 2019, 61.4% of all apprenticeship
participants were on engineering-related apprenticeships. This
is a far greater share than for England, Scotland or Wales, and
is likely to reflect the types of vocational training available. This
may be a function of the strong emphasis the Northern Irish
government has placed on cultivating STEM skills through, for
example, their 2011 ‘Success through STEM’ strategy.3.152 More
recently, results from the Northern Irish 2019 skills barometer
– which allows the government to assess where there may be
skills shortages and direct policy and funding accordingly3.153 –
identified professional, scientific and technical, ICT, and
manufacturing among the sectors with the highest forecasted
growth projections, suggesting this focus is set to continue.
That said, while engineering-related apprenticeships appear to
be far more popular in Northern Ireland than the rest of the UK,
the underrepresentation of women is clearly an issue. The
proportion of female participants on all engineering-related
frameworks was just 6.8%, similar to in England, Scotland and
Wales. However, unlike the rest of the UK, the proportion of all
apprenticeship participants who were women in Northern
Ireland was also relatively low, at just 28.8%.
In electrotechnical, the most popular apprenticeship in
Northern Ireland (representing 17.0% of all apprenticeships in
the nation), just 0.5% of participants were women, which is
particularly concerning given the relatively large numbers
enrolled. There were also several engineering-related
frameworks with no women participating. Across all levels,
apprentices in heating, ventilation, air conditioning and
refrigeration, light vehicle body and paint operations, and land
based service engineering were exclusively men – though it
must be noted that numbers within these frameworks were
small overall (60 or less). Other engineering-related areas such
as ‘food and manufacture’ fare better in terms of female
representation, though women remain a minority (44.0% of the
total participants in 2019).
Source: Northern Ireland Department for the Economy ‘ApprenticeshipsNI statistics from August 2013 to October 2019’ data, 2020.
Northern Ireland’s Department for the Economy defines a participant as an individual on ApprenticeshipsNI (a type of contract). An individual can participate on ApprenticeshipsNI more than
once.
This table shows the numbers of apprentices who were participating in engineering-related frameworks as of October 2019.
‘-’ denotes that there were no apprentices at this level.
3.152 N
orthern Ireland Department for the Economy. ‘Success through STEM’, 2011.
3.153 N
orthern Ireland Departmnet for the Economy. ‘Northern Ireland skills barometer summary report’, 2019.
97
98
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
3 – Further education and apprenticeships
Technical education: collaboration to create
lasting change
Understandably, the government wishes to see economic and
social growth across the country, and technical education is a
key part of this ambition. However, the issue is that technical
education in further education is an area that has seen
constant change for a long time, ranging from minor tweaks to
wholesale shifts, and currently we are in a period of
exceptionally wide-reaching change. It is hard to argue against
technical education being a key player in a drive towards
greater levels of productivity and social mobility, but it is
difficult to understand how exactly we can adapt it to fit the
purpose more effectively.
The current technical education (TE) landscape is complex.
This is not surprising, given that TE is attempting to solve a
number of problems for a significant number of people and
businesses. In order to understand how wide a lens TE
currently has, it is useful to outline some of its ambitions:
• helping those without work to find employment
• supporting small businesses to grow
• helping large business fill skills gaps and succession
planning
• retro-fitting literacy, numeracy, digital and other skills for
employees who are failing to progress and wish to
• improving productivity and social mobility across the UK
The current round of changes within TE are very clearly
employer-led. This could be a natural reaction to TE previously
being driven by training and education providers who may not
have created the right solutions for employers. This is not
because providers were not aligning with business needs, but
instead that they were perhaps more focussed on meeting the
needs of the learners.
An employer-led system
Individual employers may perceive a training need within their
company, which might be shaped by a range of factors, most
of which are likely to concern the growth and continued
existence of the business. Currently, the UK government’s
approach to TE expects employers to address UK productivity
and social mobility issues by creating new content for
technical courses, which is extremely difficult without having
an overarching strategic view.
Within engineering, key sector bodies
are working together to understand
skills needs - this must set an example
for industry more widely across the UK.
In the engineering sector in particular, 90% of businesses have
fewer than 10 people,3.154 meaning that they simply cannot be
expected to drive forward wider changes to the UK economy.
Many of these employers are fully committed to delivering the
changes to TE, but don’t have the capacity or wherewithal to
combine student training, development of technical content
and successful maintenance of their own businesses.
There seems to be a lack of evidence suggesting an
individualised approach can realise these wider ambitions.
There should therefore be more centralised coordination,
strategy and input at sector and sub-sector level, particularly
where there are credible sector bodies in existence that are
gathering data to identify future needs for their employers.
Technical education is addressing a
range of complex issues. We need
clear metrics to determine whether
we are solving the problems we
identified.
Organisations within engineering have attempted to address
this challenge, with EngineeringUK publishing ‘demand tables’
to analyse where particular employment and skills gaps may
lie in future.3.155 Furthermore, the recent publication of the
‘Perkins review revisited’ by the Royal Academy of Engineering
signalled several possible avenues that the sector should be
aware of. For example, the report outlined that there will be
particular demand for high integrity welders and systems
engineers.3.156
These findings can, and should, be incorporated into the
engineering TE landscape, and the work of key bodies with a
holistic view must set an example for other sectors in the UK.
T levels and apprenticeships
The government initially intended T levels to achieve a parity of
esteem with A levels, but seemingly failed to consider their
direct relationship with apprenticeships. It is hard to reconcile
the two programmes, with IfATE’s routes not aligning with
current sector subject areas and – despite the development
with occupations in mind – neither mapping easily across to
standard industrial classification (SICs) and standard
occupational classification (SOC) codes.
There are real concerns that some T levels (all of which sit at
level 3) will not allow seamless progression to an
apprenticeship and that T levels could be viewed as the ‘poor
cousin’ of apprenticeships. A T level student will have a strong
and broader knowledge base, but will not be able to claim any
skills or competence, whereas the apprentice will have the
knowledge that is required as well as the skills and the
behaviours, making them the ‘whole package’. This is a current
example of how developing strands of TE in isolation is
profoundly unhelpful.
It is counterproductive to develop
individual strands of technical education
in isolation from each other.
In the engineering sector, 90% of
businesses have fewer than 10 people.
This means it’s difficult for them to think
about broader skills needs.
What would success look like?
Criticising policy is often easy, but it is important that we focus
on solutions. There are no quick-fix answers, but there are
certainly ways to address issues.
We need to take a deep breath and look at the whole of TE to
see what it is that we appear to be creating. Once we have a
shared understanding of what is being created, we need to
decide if that is what we need (as opposed to want).
Do we need legions of successful managers gaining level 7
Master’s?
Do we want to exclude those without academic attainment
from accessing in-work training?
Can we see a correlation between the identified skills gaps in a
sector and where funding is actually being spent?
Right now, this is not really possible as we cannot map these
things to each other. And there are no metrics to judge
‘success’ in terms of productivity gains or social mobility, let
alone whether we have confidence that skills gaps have been
appropriately identified and then mapped to actual provision.
TE is attempting to solve a complex range of issues for both
individuals and business. Such problems are best resolved by
creating stronger bonds between what credible sources are
telling us we need and what TE is providing. All stakeholders
need to be part of the development of the solutions and we
need clear metrics to determine if what we are doing is solving
the problem that was identified in the first place.
The problems belong to all of us and we should share the
responsibility for creating the solutions. The insistence on
viewing a problem from a single perspective is the root of
many problems and issues in TE.
Whatever is put in place needs the continued engagement of
stakeholders, appropriate levels of funding and oversight.
Obviously there are limitations and we won’t be able to rely on
government funding to resolve all, nor should we. But together,
perhaps we could ensure that the funding that is available goes
where it is needed most and will yield the greatest return in the
long run.
Teresa Frith,
Senior Skills Policy Manager,
Association of Colleges
3.154 R
aEng. ‘Engineering skills for the future: the 2013 Perkins Review revisited’, 2019.
3.155 E
ngineeringUK. ‘Demand tables’ [online], accessed 24/03/2020.
3.156 R
aEng. ‘Engineering skills for the future: the 2013 Perkins Review revisited’, 2019.
99
100
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Engineering and technology was
the second most popular STEM
subject area for EU-domiciled
students studying in the UK in
2018 to 2019.
Key points
The UK left the European Union in January 2020 without a clear
implementation plan for university students or staff, meaning
the future landscape of higher education (HE) is unclear. In the
academic year 2018 to 2019, engineering and technology was
the second most popular STEM subject area for EU domiciled
students (12,465 enrolled). Thus, the engineering sector
should pay close attention to any updated Brexit policies and
how they may affect student uptake.
The continued underrepresentation of women, disabled
students and those from low participation neighbourhoods
indicates more work needs to be done to effectively address
challenges related to access and equality in engineering and
technology HE.
Engineering and technology entrants
Trends in engineering and technology HE participation vary
widely by level of study. Over the past 10 years, engineering
and technology entries have increased at first degree
undergraduate and postgraduate research level (by 5.6%
and 10.4%, respectively), but have declined at other
undergraduate and postgraduate taught level (by 55.5%
and 4.9%, respectively). However, barring other
undergraduates, entrant numbers remained fairly static
between 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019.
The large decline in engineering and technology entries at
other undergraduate level mirrors trends across HE more
widely, where there has been a 64.9% decrease in the past 10
years. In contrast, the decline in postgraduate taught
engineering and technology entrants has taken place in the
context of overall postgraduate taught entries rising – a
potential cause for concern.
Mechanical engineering remained the most popular first
degree choice for new students in 2018 to 2019 (25.5% of
entrants), a position it has held since 2011 to 2012. Over the
same time period, there has been a rise in popularity of general
engineering and a drop in numbers of entrants to electrical
and electronic engineering courses. The most common
principal subject for other undergraduates was general
engineering (26.8%), followed by electronic and electrical
engineering (21.8%).
Subject popularity differed again at postgraduate level, with
the largest proportions of postgraduate taught entrants
choosing either civil engineering (18.9%) or electronic or
101
4.1 – Context
Female share of engineering and
technology HE entrants in 2018
to 2019: First degree (17.6%),
Other undergraduate (12.7%),
Postgraduate taught (28.1%),
Postgraduate research (26.5%).
electrical engineering (18.9%). The most popular subject for
postgraduate research entrants was general engineering
(27.2% of entrants).
Diversity among engineering and technology HE students
There remains a stark gender disparity in engineering and
technology HE courses. Only 1 in 5 (20.7%) engineering and
technology entrants were women in 2018 to 2019, whereas
they accounted for more than half (57.2%) of the student
population overall. This gender difference varied significantly
by level of study, with postgraduate courses attracting a far
higher proportion of women than undergraduate courses
(28.1% of postgraduate taught entrants but just 17.6% of first
degree entrants). Despite these low numbers, engineering and
technology has managed to attract more women across all
levels of study since 2010 to 2011 (increase of 4.8 percentage
points). This indicates that some of the initiatives in place to
attract women into engineering may be working. However, if
trends continue at the same rate, gender equality on these
courses will not be attained for 3 decades.
The proportion of engineering and technology entrants from
minority ethnic backgrounds continues to rise, with a 29.9%
share in 2018 to 2019. This is higher than among the overall
student population, where just 25.6% were from minority ethnic
backgrounds in 2018 to 2019. Although participation figures
are encouraging, students from minority ethnic backgrounds
are less likely to achieve a ‘good’ degree classification than
their White peers. In 2018 to 2019, 72.9% of minority ethnic
engineering and technology qualifiers achieved a first or upper
second class degree, compared with 83.4% of White qualifiers.
Achievement levels varied among different ethnic groups, with
only 64.3% of Black students achieving a first or upper second,
compared with 75.7% of Asian qualifiers.
In terms of students from low participation neighbourhoods,
there were lower proportions of entrants into engineering and
technology degrees (11.3%) than across all of HE generally
(12.6%) in 2018 to 2019. Moreover, there have only been
marginal increases in these figures since 2014 to 2015,
indicating a continued challenge within engineering.
Compared with the overall HE population, engineering and
technology had a low proportion of disabled entrants in 2018
to 2019, at just 7.5% in contrast to 12.0% of the wider student
cohort. Such underrepresentation highlights the need for
widening participation efforts to ensure reasonable
adjustments are made to remove barriers to study.
The higher education (HE) sector in the United Kingdom is
extremely rich and varied, providing prospective students with a
wealth of different courses to choose from at over 100 different
institutions. In 2018 to 2019, there were 2.38 million students
studying at UK HE institutions. The HE sector contributed £21.5
billion to UK GDP in 2014 to 2015, according to a report by Oxford
Economics for Universities UK.4.1, 4.2 Furthermore, the sector
supported more than 940,000 jobs,4.3 making it an integral part of
both the education system and the country as a whole.
The HE system forms the ‘final stage’ of formal education in the
UK, following on from secondary education and technical
education, both of which are covered in previous chapters of this
report. Within this section, the composition of students – both
those studying engineering degrees and those on other courses –
will be explored, with a particular focus on ensuring participation
in HE remains open to all those in the UK, regardless of
background.
For the engineering sector in particular, the HE system has a key
role to play in increasing the engineering talent pipeline. It isn’t
mandatory to hold a degree in engineering to become a chartered
engineer, but it has been noted by the Engineering Council that the
“application process for Chartered Engineering registration is
more straightforward for those with exemplifying academic
qualifications” 4.4 (with academic qualifications in this context
meaning either an engineering bachelor’s degree plus a relevant
master’s degree, or a master’s in engineering degree).
In 2018 to 2019, there were 165,180 students enrolled in
engineering and technology degrees, a similar number to
previous years.4.5
Equality and diversity in higher education
In recent years, there have been significant efforts to widen
participation within engineering and technology courses, and in
HE more generally. This has been delivered alongside a vast
expansion to the UK HE system since the early 1990s, both in
terms of overall numbers of students and the proportion of young
people that are studying for a degree.4.6
Overall student numbers in 2018 to 2019 were lower than in their
peak in 2010 to 2011. However, although HE expansion may have
stalled, participation by those from diverse backgrounds is higher
than it has ever been.
The UK higher education population is
more diverse in 2018 to 2019 than it has
ever been.
There are many ways in which the HE population is becoming
more diverse. There have been increases in the proportion of
HE entrants from: outside the UK (25.5%); minority ethnic
backgrounds (25.6%); and low participation neighbourhoods
(12.6%). The proportion of disabled students has risen to 12.0%,4.7
and although overall figures have not changed for several years,
the gender make-up of students remains mixed, with 57.2% being
women.
Trends in diversity in engineering and technology have largely
mirrored those observed in the wider student population.
However, engineering and technology students in the UK are less
diverse than the overall student population in several ways; a fact
that will be discussed in detail later in this chapter. Specifically,
disabled students and women are particularly underrepresented.
The gender disparity among engineering students is reflected in
the engineering workforce, with women making up just 12.0% of
those working in engineering occupations in the UK.4.8
This finding is particularly concerning given that in HE overall, and
in STEM subjects, women are overrepresented. In 2018 to 2019,
over half of STEM students (52.4%) were women.4.9
While those from minority ethnic backgrounds are well
represented in engineering HE, (29.9% of engineering and
technology entrants to HE, compared with 23.6% of all students
and 14.0% of the population in England and Wales )4.10, 4.11 the
proportion of minority ethnic people working in engineering
occupations (9.0%) is low.4.12 The overall proportion of engineers
that come from low socioeconomic backgrounds (24%) is also
low.4.13
The reasons for these differences are widespread. As Chapter 1
discusses, they are often the result of systemic issues within the
education system that take place far earlier along in the education
pipeline than university. Nevertheless, those responsible for
delivering engineering courses in HE must do their utmost to
ensure that applicants from all backgrounds continue to see
engineering and technology as an attractive and viable option.
The main effort to address diversity issues across all subjects
came with the introduction in January 2018 of the Office for
Students (OfS – described in greater detail below). OfS took over
responsibility for regulating university ‘access agreements’ from
the Office for Fair Access (OFFA). These access agreements
required HE providers that wanted to charge more in tuition fees –
normally up to £9,000 – to set out exactly how they would sustain
or improve access, student succession and progression among
people from underrepresented and disadvantaged groups.
Regardless of the existing efforts, it is clear that widening
participation must go beyond simply targeting young people in
the lead-up to their decision as to whether to progress to higher
education, and if so, where and what they will study. As discussed
in Chapter 1, many of the barriers that stop young people from
progressing into STEM studies (or indeed, progressing more
generally) are rooted in much earlier experiences that shape their
motivations, capability and opportunities.
The rationale for increasing the diversity of engineering and
4.1 Figures for 2014 to 2015 were the most recent available.
4.2 U niversities UK. ‘The economic impact of universities in 2014-15’, 2017.
4.3 Ibid.
4.4 Engineering Council. ‘Chartered Engineer’ [online], accessed 22/01/2020.
4.5 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.6 O NS. ‘How has the student population changed?’, 2016.
4.7 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
4.8 EngineeringUK. ‘Gender disparity in engineering’, 2018.
4.9 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.10 Ibid.
4.11 U K Government. ‘Population of England and Wales’ [online], accessed 30/04/2020.
4.12 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
4.13 Ibid.
102
4 – Higher education
technology students is not only based on a very pertinent need for
social justice and equality; there is also a strong business case. If
the engineering sector is to address its longstanding skills
shortage,4.14 it is critical that it attracts as wide a talent pool as
possible. And the benefits of increasing the diversity of
engineering and technology students in HE is not simply a matter
of numbers. Research has consistently shown that a more diverse
talent pool brings with it increased creativity and new ideas
(essential for an innovative, solutions-based industry) as well as
enhanced motivation, retention, group problem solving and
financial performance.4.15, 4.16, 4.17
For the United Kingdom to have a thriving, productive and
competitive engineering sector, there must be enough people in
the workforce to ensure the demand for crucial new infrastructure
and technology can be met. In addition, we need a workforce that
is diverse enough to bring about true innovation within the sector.
For those from underrepresented
groups, we must increase participation
and retention in HE, as well as ensure
parity in employment outcomes.
In HE, increasing participation, improving retention and
completion, and working towards parity in employment outcomes
for those from underrepresented groups will be paramount in
providing the engineering sector with the qualified and inclusive
workforce it needs.
This chapter will explore in detail students from these groups –
with a particular focus on how engineering and technology
compares with the overall student population. It will also
investigate the differences between students studying at different
levels and the complex factors involved when examining the
interplay between gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
disability and nationality.
Key policy developments
Brexit
On 31 January 2020, the UK left the European Union. The one year
transition period lasts until new rules take effect on 1 January
2021, after the UK and the EU have finished negotiating additional
arrangements.4.18
Although the impact of Brexit cannot be fully understood until the
final trading arrangements have been decided, the UK’s decision
to leave the EU has already had an adverse effect on the university
sector. An article in the Guardian,4.19 for example, reported that
“almost 11,000 EU academics had left since the 2016
referendum”. Other studies have found that the decision has
affected the degree to which the UK is seen as a desirable place
to study, with 40% of EU students aged 15 to 17 indicating they
4 – Higher education
were less likely to study in the UK because of Brexit.4.20
Many in the HE sector have voiced concerns that Brexit could lead
to a potential reduction in student numbers and staff, as well as
the loss of EU research funding.4.21 This could have a significant
bearing on the UK economy, as HE is estimated to contribute
£14.4 billion in education related ‘exports’, which is two-thirds
(67%) of the educational export total.4.22 These ‘exports’ mainly
comprise tuition fees and expenditure on living costs while in the
UK by non-UK domiciled students. EU students contribute almost
£2.7 billion of this total. Educational exports also include revenue
that UK HE institutions receive from offshore campuses and
distance learning programmes (transnational education
activities).4.23
The effect of a reduction in EU and international student numbers,
if this does transpire, is far from being limited to the immediate
income they represent in the form of educational exports. It also
has a bearing on the talent pool for the UK, especially in sectors
such as engineering that are experiencing skills shortages.
The potential reduction in international student numbers is of
particular concern for engineering and technology, where they
comprise a significant proportion of those studying the subject,
especially at postgraduate level. In fact, with 12,465 students
from the EU enrolled into engineering and technology related
courses in the UK in 2018 to 2019, the subject is one of the most
popular STEM subjects studied here by EU students, second only
to biological sciences.4.24 With the shortfall of graduate level
engineers already estimated to be between 37,000 and 59,000,4.25
a decline in students studying engineering and technology at UK
universities poses a further threat to successfully addressing the
skills shortage.
Higher Education and Research Act
By far the most significant legislative change to impact the
UK HE sector in recent years came about in 2017, with the
implementation of the Higher Education and Research Act
(HERA).
The Act was split into 4 parts, each with a different purpose,
namely:4.26
• e
stablishing a new body called the Office for Students (OfS)
and giving it responsibility for regulating the English HE
sector
• u
pdating and changing previous legislation on student
financial support and complaints procedures
• introducing a new body called UK Research and Innovation
(UKRI), which takes responsibility for regulating and funding
research
• a
ddressing various administrative issues, such as joint
working and data sharing between OfS and UKRI
Although OFFA officially closed in April 2018,4.27 all of its duties
have been subsumed by OfS. The change in title reflects
numerous other changes due to growing recognition that “simply
getting more students from under-represented backgrounds into
higher education is not enough, especially when they have worse
non-continuation rates and outcomes than other students overall,
with disadvantage following them long after they have left higher
education”, according to a recent paper from the Higher
Education Policy Institute (HEPI).4.28
OfS superseded the Higher Education Funding Council of England
(HEFCE) as the main regulator of English HE and is responsible
for holding universities to account for the quality of teaching they
provide.4.29
OfS also is responsible for regulating university access
agreements, discussed in the equality and diversity section
above. As part of this, OfS is working closely with HE providers
and HESA to ensure there is sufficient data on protected
characteristics of students, including gender, ethnicity and
socioeconomic status.
students is a prohibiting factor to widening participation. A 2017
survey by the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON)
found that if they had been able to receive a maintenance grant,
57% of respondents would have considered attending a wider
range of institutions and 61% would have reduced the amount of
paid work done during term time.4.34
The second point is important, because students from
disadvantaged backgrounds may need to work part-time during
term time This may lead to lower academic outcomes for those
students, widening the gap in attainment between students
whose socioeconomic status differs (see section 4.6 for more
detail). Research conducted recently by upReach for the Social
Mobility Commission highlighted the potential adverse effects of
working while studying. Students doing paid work reported that it
had an impact on their studies (73%), their wider participation in
university life (70%) and their wellbeing (53%).4.35
Funding changes
In addition to changes in regulation that came about following the
HERA, there have also been several changes to student finance
over the past 10 years. Crucially, the rise in the maximum possible
value for tuition fees passed by the coalition government in 2010
– which came into effect for the first time in the academic year
2012 to 2013 – impacted student numbers significantly (as
displayed in Figure 4.1 in section 4.2).
About the data
The majority of students from lowincome backgrounds would have
widened the range of universities they
applied for if they had received a
maintenance grant.
• Entrants: students who are recorded as being in the first
year of their degree. The course does not have to be their
first course in HE (for example, entrants to postgraduate
courses will often have completed an undergraduate
degree).
Several years after the rise in fees, in the 2015 summer budget the
Conservative government announced its intention to abolish
student grants and replace them with maintenance loans
requiring repayment.4.30 This particularly impacted those with a
low household income, because instead of receiving a bursary
that they would not have to pay back, they now needed to procure
an extra loan.
• Qualifiers: those who obtained a HE qualification in the
HESA reporting period, including qualifications awarded
from dormant, writing-up or sabbatical status.
The government justified this at the time by saying that for
“students on incomes of £25,000 or less, the loan for living costs
in 2016/17 will be 10.3% higher than the combined maximum
maintenance grant and loan in 2015/16”.4.31 However, there is clear
evidence that students from low income backgrounds now
accumulate the largest student loan debts,4.32 with many of those
from the poorest backgrounds accruing debts of £57,000 (plus
interest) from a 3-year degree.4.33
The tables in this chapter consist of data from the Higher
Education Statistics Agency (HESA) student record,
covering the 2018 to 2019 academic year. HESA counts
the academic year (reporting period) as 1 August 2018 to
31 July 2019.
The HESA data lets us look at different cohorts of
students, including:
• Students: all students (including entrants) registered at
a reporting HE provider who follow courses that lead to
the award of a qualification(s) or HE provider credit,
excluding those registered as studying wholly oversas.
The majority of this chapter covers analysis of entrants
because this gives the most up-to-date view of the HE
landscape and allows comparisons between the overall
population of students and engineering and technology
entrants.
Not all students who enter HE will complete their degree.
Drop-out rates vary between groups, so the composition
of qualifiers differs from that of entrants. We have
included analysis and tables on qualifiers in our Excel
resource, which are signposted in this chapter.
The large – and often crippling – debts experienced by these
4.14 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering UK: The state of engineering 2018’, 2018.
4.15 M cKinsey & Company. ‘Diversity matters’, 2015.
4.16 Harvard Business Review. ‘How diversity can drive innovation’ [online], accessed 11/02/2020.
4.17 CIPD. ‘Diversity and inclusion at work: facing up to the business case’, 2018.
4.18 U K Government. ‘Transition period’ [online], accessed 02/02/2020.
4.19 T he Guardian. ‘Lib Dems warn of Brexit brain drain as EU academics quit’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.20 Q S. ‘International Student Survey 2019’, 2019.
4.21 Global Business Outlook. ‘The implications of Brexit for the UK higher education system’ [online], accessed 02/02/2020.
4.22 D fE. ‘UK Revenue from education related exports and transnational education activity in 2017’, 2019.
4.23 Ibid.
4.24 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.25 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering UK: The state of engineering 2018’, 2018.
4.26 U K Government legislation. ‘The higher education and research act 2017’ [online], accessed 30/04/2017.
103
4.27 U K Government. ‘Office for Fair Access’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.28 H EPI. ‘Introducing our manifesto for the new director of fair access and participation’, 2018.
4.29 U K Government. ‘New universities regulator comes into force’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.30 House of Commons Library. ‘Abolition of maintenance grants in England from 2016/17’, 2017.
4.31 U K Government legislation. ‘Explanatory memorandum to the education (student support) (amendment) regulations 2015’, 2015.
4.32 EPI. ‘Post-18 education and funding: Options for the government review’, 2019.
4.33 IFS. ‘Higher Education funding in England: past, present and options for the future’, 2017.
4.34 N EON. ‘Does cost matter? How the HE finance system affects student decision making’, 2017.
4.35 upReach. ‘Impact of part time jobs at university’, 2019.
104
4 – Higher education
In addition, qualifiers in the academic year 2018 to 2019
cannot be compared with entrants, because the former
may have started in various different years. Where we
present analysis of degree attainment, we use the first
degree undergraduate qualifier population.
Due to the availability of historical HESA data, where we
present time series going back further than the academic
year 2014 to 2015, we compare engineering and
technology entrants to the overall HE student population.
Although there are limitations in this approach, there are
benefits to examining results over a longer time period, so
this is still a useful comparison.
All totals presented are rounded to the nearest 5, in
accordance with HESA policy on data disclosure. This
means that the sum of any subtotals in a figure may not
match the total.
Exclusions
GDPR rules mean HESA now has to seek permission on
how the data it collects from HE providers can be used.
Data use was categorised according to the types of
organisations that would use it and the reason for its
use.4.36 This change affected the HESA data that
EngineeringUK receives, with 3 HE providers opting not to
provide data to organisations in our category: Falmouth
University; University of Worcester; and London South
Bank University. However, data from these providers is still
available in high-level aggregations published on the HESA
website. Where possible, we have used published HESA
data to present analysis on engineering students.
Detailed data on entrants and qualifiers broken down by
principal subject and personal characteristics, including
gender, ethnicity, POLAR4 status and disability, is not
publicly available. So in order to include analysis such as
detailed subject breakdowns and attainment in
engineering and technology degrees by specific
characteristics, we have used raw HESA data that
excludes the 3 providers mentioned above – a decision we
believe is justified because of the value of that analysis.
As some of the figures in this chapter use the published
data and some use the raw data (the latter is indicated in a
figure’s footnotes), totals presented in figures using
published and raw data may not match.
The numbers of engineering and technology students
affected are:
• first degree undergraduate entrants – 590 students
excluded from the raw data (1.6% of the total)
• other undergraduate entrants – 155 students excluded
from the raw data (3.1% of the total)
• postgraduate taught entrants – 90 students excluded
from the raw data (0.5% of the total)
• postgraduate research entrants – 20 students excluded
from the raw data (0.4% of the total)
4 – Higher education
4.2 – Engineering and technology in higher
education
In the UK HE system, engineering degrees fall under the broad
subject group of engineering and technology, within which there
are 10 separate engineering subjects and 8 technology subjects
(see Figure 4.3).4.37 The broad range available allows students
wishing to embark on an engineering degree to fully assess which
type of engineering would be suitable for them, given their
preferences and career ambitions.
There are excellent options in the UK for students choosing to
study engineering here, including 3 of the top 20 universities in the
world for engineering, according to the Times Higher Education
World University Rankings.4.39 This puts the UK on an extremely
competitive footing globally and is undoubtedly is a significant
factor for the many international students who choose to take
undergraduate and postgraduate engineering courses in England,
Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales.
13.5%
13.0%
Figure 4.1 Engineering and technology student numbers over
time (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
Engineering and
technology students
Year
No.
Change
over 1
year (%)
All students
No.
Change
over 1
year (%)
2009/10
156,985
2,493,420
2010/11
160,885
2.0%
2,501,295
0.3%
2011/12
162,020
1.0%
2,496,645
0.0%
2012/13
158,115
-2.0%
2,340,275
-6.0%
2013/14
159,010
1.0%
2,299,355
-2.0%
2014/15
161,445
2.0%
2,266,075
-1.0%
2015/16
163,255
1.0%
2,280,825
1.0%
2016/17
165,155
1.2%
2,317,880
1.6%
2017/18
164,975
-0.1%
2,343,095
1.1%
2018/19
165,180
0.1%
2,383,970
1.7%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
As Figure 4.1 shows, over the last decade there has been a small
but steady growth in the number of HE students who have chosen
to study engineering and technology, although this has plateaued
over the past 3 years. Although the numbers of engineering and
technology students fell in the academic year 2012 to 2013 when
tuition fees increased,4.39 the decline was relatively marginal
compared with the drop seen in overall student numbers. And by
2015 to 2016, more students were studying engineering and
technology than before the tuition fee increase, whereas total
student numbers have not recovered in the same way.
However, the picture looks somewhat different when we consider
engineering’s share of all student entries over time (Figure 4.2).
13.5%
13.1%
12.7%
12.2%
12.8%
12.6%
6.8%
6.7%
6.6%
6.5%
6.7%
6.7%
6.1%
6.1%
6.1%
6.0%
6.0%
6.1%
5.2%
5.1%
5.1%
Engineering student numbers
4.36 H ESA. ‘Categories of onward data use’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
4.37 T here are 19 subject groups in the UK HE system, 9 of which are classed as STEM.
4.38 T imes Higher Education. ‘Best universities for engineering degrees 2020’ [online], accessed 22/01/2020.
4.39 U K Government. ‘Changes to tuition fees and higher education’ [online], accessed 22/01/2020.
105
Figure 4.2 Engineering and technology entrants as a share of overall HE entrants by level of study (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
12.4%
12.5%
6.7%
6.6%
6.4%
5.9%
5.0%
4.1%
5.5%
4.5%
5.2%
5.0%
4.3%
4.2%
3.6%
3.3%
2009/10
6.5%
2010/11
First degree
2011/12
Other undergraduate
2012/13
Postgraduate taught
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
Postgraduate research
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19' data, 2011 to 2020.
Looking at the past 10 years, the proportion of all HE entrants who
have chosen to study engineering and technology has remained
relatively steady, but in recent years that share has been slowly
decreasing. This drop is slightly more pronounced for
postgraduate taught entrants, with a 1.1 percentage point
decrease over the past 5 years. This is worrying, given the
increased efforts by many bodies to boost the attractiveness of
engineering.
The UK government has made a concerted effort to encourage
more young people to take up STEM subjects in all educational
pathways. This includes university study, with initiatives including
incentives for higher education institutions (HEIs) to offer STEM
courses. The OfS, for example, provides funding for high cost
subjects where the tuition fee alone is not enough to meet the full
costs of delivery; these include laboratory-based science,
engineering and technology subjects.4.40
Engineering subjects
Most engineering and technology courses available in the UK
focus on a particular area of engineering, which means students
will specialise from an early stage in their studies. However, there
are some courses – such as general engineering – where
undergraduates can choose their specialism later in their studies.
This lets them leave their options open until they know more
about potential career choices.
The options available fall into 2 categories: engineering and
technology. The subjects available are displayed in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3 Engineering and technology principal subjects in HE
Engineering principal subjects
Technology principal subjects
(H0) Broadly based programmes
within engineering and
(J1) Minerals technology
technology
(H1) General engineering
(J2) Metallurgy
(H2) Civil engineering
(J3) Ceramics and glass
(H3) Mechanical engineering
(J4) Polymers and textiles
(H4) Aerospace engineering
(J5) Materials technology not
otherwise specified
(H5) Naval architecture
(J6) Maritime technology
(H6) Electronic and electrical
engineering
(J7) Biotechnology
(H7) Production and
(J9) Others in technology
manufacturing engineering
(H8) Chemical, process and
energy engineering
(H9) Others in engineering
Source: HESA. ‘JACS 3.0: Principal subject codes’ [online], accessed 25/03/2020.
These are the engineering subject according to the Joint ACADEMIC Coding System (JACS)
codes. With the introduction of the Higher Education Classification of Subjects (HECoS)
codes, the engineering areas may change.
4.40 O fS. ‘Supporting STEM subjects’ [online], accessed 22/01/2020.
106
4 – Higher education
Case study – Airbus Global University
Partnership Programme
Suzanne Baltay, University Relations, AGUPP
The Airbus Global University Partnership Programme
(AGUPP) is a structured university network designed to
meet rapidly evolving business needs. Its overall aim is to
ensure a better exchange of insights with universities on
the future skills and competency needs of Airbus, and to
enable faster integration of these needs into relevant
academic and training programmes.
AGUPP collaboration activities are designed to help
students develop their technical expertise, business
understanding, innovation and skills in emerging sectors
(such as Internet of Things, additive manufacturing,
augmented reality, artificial intelligence and robotics) to
better prepare the workforce of the future.
AGUPP engages creatively with universities beyond the
traditional route of supporting research activities. This
allows us to bring together students with Airbus technical
experts and ignite curiosity and innovation in both groups.
By collaborating, students learn how effective real
diversity of background and approach can be in delivering
engineering solutions.
The ‘Drone Dash’ activity run at the University of Bristol is a
great example of how this works. Here, Airbus set
students the challenge of designing, building and flying a
drone to complete a simulated rescue mission in 48 hours.
The students had one day to design, build and program
their drone and a system to pick up objects of varying
weights and complexity. On the second day, the drones
were deployed in a safe flying arena to ‘rescue’ the objects,
with a prize for the quickest times and most innovative
solutions to any problems they encountered. It was a very
popular and dynamic event.
Through this and other activities, Airbus can reach a wide
audience, engage directly with students and raise its
profile among a student population that may not consider
Airbus as a first choice employer for their discipline. By
working with our experts, students get to know Airbus,
giving them a greater insight into the Airbus community
and allowing them to imagine their future with us.
Furthermore, the enthusiasm and ‘can-do’ approach of the
students has proved to be highly inspirational to our
engineers, who have found they can learn from the digital
generation.
Within these principal subjects, students can choose from many
further areas of study, allowing them to specialise even more than
they would if they chose to study a broader engineering option.
The system of classification for undergraduate degrees is the
Joint Academic Coding System (JACS). 4.41 This is soon to be
replaced by a new coding system called the Higher Education
Classification of Subjects (HECoS), meaning that the established
engineering subject areas may change.4.42
Some of the current engineering degree codes have ties
to the UK Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes
with professional engineering.4.43 This means students can be
4 – Higher education
sure there are specific jobs related in a concrete way to their
degree choices, which many other traditional STEM areas do not
benefit from.
In addition, many engineering courses have strong ties to industry
and even to particular employers, so students on these courses
could have an inherent advantage in terms of transitioning into the
labour market. For instance, some engineering courses offer a
‘sandwich year’ as part of their course, giving undergraduates
invaluable experience of working for an engineering company
before finishing their degree. This has advantages for both
students and employers. Students gain in understanding of what
an engineering role entails and improve their employability
prospects. At the same time, an employer can assess whether
they want to take on a particular student when they complete
their degree.
4.3 – Engineering and technology students by
level of study
About the data
In this chapter, we focus on 4 different levels of education
and on engineering students across different subjects
compared within each of these levels. The different levels
of study are defined by HESA and refer to the content of
each course. The levels that are considered are:
• first degree undergraduates
• other undergraduates
• postgraduate taught
• postgraduate research
Undergraduates are students participating in programmes
of study leading to qualifications at first or foundation
degree level, or a range of HE diplomas and certificates
(levels 4 to 6 of the national qualifications framework). In
the majority of our analysis, undergraduates have been
disaggregated into first degree undergraduates and other
undergraduate students.
• First degrees – taken by students with no prior degreelevel qualification in the subject. May include eligibility
to register to practice with a health or social care or
veterinary statutory regulatory body.
• Other undergraduate – includes qualification aims
equivalent to and below first degree level including, but
not limited to: Professional Graduate Certification in
Education, foundation degrees, diplomas in HE, Higher
National Diploma (HND), Higher National Certificate and
Diploma of Higher Education. Several other
qualifications also fall within this category, and it is a
complex landscape that interacts with the further
education sector, especially the Higher Technical
Qualifications described in Chapter 3.
107
Mechanical engineering entrants made
up over a quarter of all first degree
engineering entrants in 2018 to 2019.
There are differences – for example by gender and
socioeconomic status – between students enrolled on
each of these different qualification types. The roles they
can undertake in the engineering sector upon finishing
their degrees may vary according to their highest level of
study. While the 4 HESA qualification levels don’t map
directly to the qualification levels outlined in Chapter 1, it is
possible to establish the breakdown of engineering
students by both HESA level of study and UK qualification
(see Figure 4.4).
First degree undergraduate entrants
In 2018 to 2019, 37,200 students started first degree engineering
and technology courses. Of these, the most commonly studied
subject was mechanical engineering, which was chosen by over
one quarter (25.5%) of all first degree engineering entrants (see
Figure 4.5). This is the largest engineering degree choice by a
significant margin, at 9.2 percentage points above electronic and
electrical engineering (16.3%).
Figure 4.4 Engineering and technology HE entrants by level of
study and qualification (2018/19) – UK
HESA level of study
Qualification
level
Doctorate
(level 8)
90.3%
–
–
–
9.7%
100.0%
24.8%
–
Bachelor's
(level 6)
–
–
74.1%
6.4%
Below degree
level
–
–
1.1%
93.6%
17,445 36,615
4,795
Masters
(level 7)
Total
Figure 4.5 Engineering and technology first degree entrants by
principal subject (2018/19) – UK
Mechanical engineering
Postgraduate Postgraduate
First
Other
research
taught degree undergraduate
25.5%
Electronic and electrical engineering
16.3%
General engineering
15.9%
Civil engineering
15.0%
4,720
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Totals and percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students
studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London
South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside
the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
Qualification levels 6, 7 and 8 refers to qualification levels in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland only.
Aerospace engineering
9.3%
Chemical, process and energy engineering
7.9%
Technology subjects
4.5%
Production and manufacturing engineering
At 64,425, the number of HE entrants
across all levels to engineering and
technology has remained fairly static
over the last year.
Postgraduate courses lead to higher degrees, diplomas
and certificates, and usually require a first degree as an
entry qualification. Taught and research courses differ in
terms of their content, with the former having a high
proportion of lectures, seminars and tutorials and the
latter being mainly based on independent research.
4.41 H ESA. ‘JACS 3.0: Detailed (four digit) subject codes’ [online] accessed 15/04/2020.
4.42 H ESA. ‘The Higher Education Classification of Subjects (HECoS)’ [online], accessed 22/01/2020.
4.43 T he UK SOC codes include: 2121, Civil engineers; 2122, Mechanical engineers; 2123, Electrical engineers; 2124, Electronic engineers; 2126, Design and development engineers;
2127, Production and process engineers.
In 2018 to 2019, there were 64,425 entrants into engineering and
technology courses, which represented a less than 0.1% increase
on the previous year. First degree undergraduate entrants made
up the largest proportion (57.7%), followed by postgraduate taught
entrants (27.2%), other undergraduate entrants (7.7%) and
postgraduate research entrants (7.4%).4.44
It is worth noting that these degree levels closely follow –
but are not fully aligned with – qualification levels. As
Figure 4.4 shows, while the vast majority of postgraduate
research entrants are studying for PhD (doctorate) level
qualifications, just 1 in 10 are working toward a Master’s.
There are also first degree entrants (24.8% of entrants)
who are studying for a master’s (level 7) qualification.
These students are studying on MEng courses, where they
attain a master’s qualification at the end of 4 years of
engineering study.
3.1%
All other engineering subjects
2.5%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within
engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology
detailed in Figure 4.3.
4.44 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
108
4 – Higher education
Interestingly, the distribution of first degree entrants across the
different engineering subjects doesn’t match that of the
engineering workforce by occupation. Instead, civil engineering is
the subsector that accounts for the largest number of employees
within professional engineering (92,500),4.45 followed by
mechanical engineering (79,300) and design and development
engineering (77,000).4.46 It’s possible that the future composition
of the engineering workforce will therefore look slightly different
to today’s make-up with, for example, a greater number of
mechanical engineers than at present (though, of course, not all
graduates will choose to work in the discipline they studied).
Although mechanical engineering
is the most popular first degree for
engineering and technology entrants,
there are more professional civil
engineers than mechanical engineers.
Case study – Perspectives from an
engineering student
Jamie McKane – 4th year student, Mechanical
Engineering, University of Bristol
My decision to study mechanical engineering came from a
strong interest in maths and a determination to follow on
and apply this knowledge in a useful and innovative way.
Ultimately, it is the prospect of sitting down in future with a
team of talented people to design pioneering products and
solutions that excites me about the discipline.
I decided to study engineering at a fairly late stage and
wanted to keep my options open, so decided that the
mechanical course at Bristol was the broadest available.
Subsequently, I have found this to be the right decision as
my deepest interests during my time here have been
mechatronic systems and control. Also, the mechanical
(and aerospace) course is more heavily focused on
mathematics than the civil course, which suits my skillset
better. The course at Bristol has introduced me to new and
difficult challenges, such as coding and finite element
analysis.
4 – Higher education
First degree entrants over time
Overall, there has been an increase in engineering and technology
first degree entrants. There has been a 5.6% rise since the
academic year 2009 to 2010 (and there was also a large increase
between 2006 to 2007 and 2009 to 2010). However, there has only
been a 0.3% rise since 2017 to 2018. As with other university
subjects, the number of engineering and technology first degree
entrants fell between 2011 to 2012 and 2012 to 2013 (a drop of
10.8%), coinciding with the rise in tuition fees.
Since 2012 to 2013, overall engineering first degree entries have
risen by 14.9%, which is marginally lower than the overall rise in
first degree undergraduate entrants at 18.1%.4.47
As can be seen in Figure 4.6, there has been an upward trend in
the take-up of mechanical engineering at first degree level for
some time. Over the last 10 years, it has steadily gained popularity
relative to the other engineering disciplines, overtaking electronic
and electrical engineering as the most popular engineering
discipline in 2011 to 2012.
Since 2012 to 2013, there has been a 24.8% increase in the
number of mechanical engineering first degree entrants. In this
same time period, general and aerospace engineering have both
also seen a rise in uptake, whereas there has been a decline in the
numbers of first degree entrants opting for electronic and
electrical, and chemical, process and energy engineering.
Of particular note is the steep decline of first degree entrants into
technology subjects – there has been a 61.4% decrease over the
last 10 years and a 18.3% decrease in the past year alone. This
may be reflective of the drop in students taking technology
subjects in schools outlined in Chapter 2.
The number of students entering
technology subjects at first degree level
has decreased by 61.4% in the past 10
years, and 18.3% in the past year alone.
Sometimes the workload is tough, but the coursework
often involves writing a detailed technical report, which
will prepare me well for professional projects in the future.
Although I’m unsure of exactly what I’ll do after my degree
or which company I will work for, I would like to work in the
research and development department of an engineering
company. The ability of engineers to do something in a
novel and creative way is something I admire and would
love to be a part of.
Diversity is something often lacking in engineering
cohorts at university and unfortunately I would say this is
the case for Bristol. The majority of students on my course
are men from White or East Asian backgrounds and so
more should be done to encourage women and those from
other minority ethnic backgrounds into the field.
Figure 4.6 Engineering and technology first degree entrants over time by principal subject (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
General engineering
Civil engineering
Mechanical engineering
Aerospace engineering
Electronic and electrical engineering
Production and manufacturing engineering
Chemical, process and energy engineering
All other engineering subjects
Technology subjects
2018/19
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19' data, 2011 to 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped
into ‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
To view numbers associated with this chart and engineering and technology first degree qualifiers over time by gender, ethnic group, POLAR4 status, disability and domicile,
see Figure 4.6-4.6a in our Excel resource.
Other undergraduate entrants
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, there were 4,950 other
undergraduate entrants to engineering and technology
subjects. Among these entrants, the distribution across
different subjects is very different from that observed at first
degree level, with more than a quarter (26.8%) studying general
engineering and a further 21.8% studying electronic and
electrical engineering. It’s possible this reflects the nature of
the types of qualifications associated with this level of study.
For example, HNC and HND qualifications or foundation
degrees are generally more vocationally focused and may be
broader in terms of the range of topics they cover.
Figure 4.7 Engineering and technology other undergraduate
entrants by principal subject (2018/19) – UK
General engineering
26.8%
Electronic and electrical engineering
21.8%
Technology subjects
15.1%
Mechanical engineering
13.9%
Civil engineering
8.4%
Production and manufacturing engineering
6.1%
Aerospace engineering
3.7%
All other engineering subjects
3.1%
Chemical, process and energy engineering
1.1%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within
engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjectsincludes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology
detailed in Figure 4.3.
4.45 The most common engineering occupation was ‘engineering professionals not elsewhere classified’.
4.46 Nomis. ‘Annual Population Survey Employment by Occupation – Oct 2018 to Sep 2019’, 2020.
4.47 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
109
110
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Figure 4.8 Engineering and technology other undergraduate entrants over time by principal subject (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
3,000
Figure 4.9 Engineering and technology postgraduate taught
entrants by principal subject (2018/19) – UK
Civil engineering
2,500
18.9%
Electronic and electrical engineering
2,000
Nevertheless, this is worrying for the engineering sector, especially
given that across all of HE, postgraduate taught entries have risen by
15.6% over the same period.4.53
18.9%
1,500
Mechanical engineering
15.5%
1,000
In the past 10 years, there has been a
4.9% decrease in postgraduate taught
entrants to engineering and technology
courses, compared to a 15.6% increase
for all HE subjects.
General engineering
500
12.7%
Technology subjects
0
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
General engineering
Civil engineering
Mechanical engineering
Aerospace engineering
Electronic and electrical engineering
Production and manufacturing engineering
Chemical, process and energy engineering
All other engineering subjects
Technology subjects
2018/19
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19' data, 2011 to 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
To view numbers associated with this chart and engineering and technology other undergraduate qualifiers over time by gender, ethnic group, POLAR4 status, disability and domicile,
see Figure 4.8-4.8a in our Excel resource.
Other undergraduate entrants over time
As Figure 4.8 shows, since 2009 to 2010 there has been a
sharp drop in other undergraduate entrants across all
engineering disciplines (down by 55.5%) with a decrease of
8.3% in just one year since 2017 to 2018. The decline has been
starkest in mechanical engineering and technology courses,
but the number of other undergraduate entrants on general,
electronic and electrical, aerospace and civil engineering have
all decreased significantly in the past 10 years.
The decline in engineering and technology other
undergraduates reflects a broader trend of falling numbers at
this level. In the last 5 years alone, the number of other
undergraduate entrants in HE overall has declined by 25.0%
(from 155,740 in 2014 to 2015 to just 116,850 in 2018 to
2019).4.48 A 2019 House of Commons briefing on HE student
numbers noted that this fall coincided with the steep decline in
part-time HE entrants overall;4.49 the large majority of those
studying at other undergraduate level do so on a part-time
basis and are often older than first degree entrants.4.50
The decline in part-time and mature students has been
lamented by many in the HE sector. For instance, in an article
by Claire Callendar, a professor of HE policy at UCL Institute of
Education, she notes that these types of students are “central
to the national skills strategy for reskilling and upskilling the
workforce, and for widening HE participation”.4.51
In section 4.6 we show that for engineering and technology
subjects, other undergraduate entrants are more likely to come
from disadvantaged backgrounds than those on other levels of
study.
Postgraduate taught entrants
Within universities in the UK, there are numerous postgraduate
taught engineering courses available. The majority of these
courses come in the form of a taught master’s (MSc) course,
where students are likely to have a research element included
in their studies, as well as attending lectures, seminars and
tutorials. A postgraduate taught degree often follows a similar
structure to an undergraduate degree and is used to bridge the
gap between a bachelor’s degree and a PhD (research) degree.
In addition to further study, many engineering postgraduate
taught courses meet the qualification requirements to become
a chartered engineer.4.52
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, there were 17,535
postgraduate taught entrants to engineering and technology
subjects, with civil engineering (18.9% of entrants) and
electronic and electrical engineering (18.9% of entrants) being
the most popular choices, followed by mechanical engineering
(15.5% of entrants). It is interesting to note that students are
more evenly distributed across disciplines at this level, given
the large gap in popularity between mechanical engineering
and other subjects at first degree level.
4.48 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2014/15 to 2018/19’, 2016 to 2020.
4.49 House of Commons Library. ‘Higher education student numbers’, 2019.
4.50 AdvanceHE. ‘Equality in higher education statistical report 2019’ data, 2019.
4.51 WONKHE. ‘Stop the decline in part-time undergraduate study’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
4.52 Imperial College London, for example, offers MSc courses in electrical engineering that are accredited by the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) on behalf of the
Engineering Council as meeting requirements for further learning for registration as a chartered engineer.
111
Postgraduate taught entrants over time
Overall, the number of entrants on engineering and technology
postgraduate taught courses has decreased by 4.9% since the
academic year 2009 to 2010, but the figure of 18,445 in that year was
a peak, with large increases in each preceding year from 2005 to
2006. In the last year to 2018 to 2019 we have seen a 2.1% increase.
11.5%
Chemical, process and energy engineering
7.4%
Figure 4.10 shows that there have been fluctuations in the number
of postgraduate taught entrants into engineering courses over
time. In particular, there has been a large decline in the number of
electronic and electrical entrants since 2009 to 2010 (a decrease of
26.3%). This was, however, preceded by a large increase between
2007 to 2008 and 2008 to 2009, and there has been a gradual
increase in popularity again since 2016 to 2017, with entrant
numbers rising each year.
Production and manufacturing engineering
7.1%
Aerospace engineering
5.3%
All other engineering subjects
2.7%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within
engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology
detailed in Figure 4.3.
Conversely, there has been a steady increase in numbers of
mechanical engineering entrants since 2012 to 2013, from just
1,935 in 2012 to 2013 to 2,725 in 2018 to 2019 – a 40.8% increase.
This is a similar trend to that seen in first degree entrants. The
increased popularity of mechanical engineering across both levels
could indicate a shift in attitudes towards the types of courses and
occupations that students are likely to choose in the future.
Figure 4.10 Engineering and technology postgraduate taught entrants over time by principal subject (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
General engineering
Civil engineering
Mechanical engineering
Aerospace engineering
Electronic and electrical engineering
Production and manufacturing engineering
Chemical, process and energy engineering
All other engineering subjects
Technology subjects
2018/19
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19' data, 2011 to 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
To view numbers associated with this chart and engineering and technology postgraduate taught qualifiers over time by gender, ethnic group, POLAR4 status, disability and domicile,
see Figure 4.10-4.10a in our Excel resource.
4.53 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
112
4 – Higher education
Postgraduate research entrants
At 4,740 in 2018 to 2019, the number of students entering
engineering and technology courses at postgraduate research
level is lower than all other qualification levels. This is the case
across HE more generally and reflects the fact that some
students choose not to progress to the next qualification level.
However, for those who do choose to pursue engineering
education up to the highest level, there are clear benefits in
terms of remuneration. Longitudinal Educational Outcomes
(LEO) data shows that there is a significant premium, in
respect of earnings, placed on those with PhD qualifications
compared with master’s level degrees.4.54 Median earnings for
UK domiciled engineering students who graduated with a
master’s level (level 7) degree in 2014 to 2015 were £35,800
per year 3 years after graduating, compared with £37,800 for
those with a PhD (level 8).4.55
Figure 4.11 Engineering and technology postgraduate
research entrants by principal subject (2018/19) – UK
General engineering
27.2%
Electronic and electrical engineering
20.0%
Mechanical engineering
13.9%
Chemical, process and energy engineering
11.6%
Civil engineering
9.9%
Technology subjects
8.6%
Aerospace engineering
3.8%
Production and manufacturing engineering
3.6%
All other engineering subjects
1.3%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within
engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed
in Figure 4.3.
4 – Higher education
In contrast to postgraduate taught and undergraduate
entrants, where specialist engineering subjects make up the
largest proportions of students, the most common
postgraduate research degree for engineering and technology
postgraduate research entrants in 2018 to 2019 was general
engineering (27.2%). This is perhaps contrary to what we might
expect, as students tend to specialise more as they continue
along the educational pipeline. However, it’s possible that the
specialist and industry focused nature of specific engineering
subjects lend themselves better to moving on into employment
in the relevant field, whereas those studying general
engineering may be more inclined to pursue research.
Postgraduate research entrants over time
Overall, the number of entrants to postgraduate research
degrees in engineering and technology has risen by 10.4%
since 2009 to 2010, but in the year to 2018 to 2019 there was
just a 0.2% increase.
Since 2009 to 2010 there has been
a 10.4% increase in the number of
postgraduate research entrants to
engineering and technology courses,
but in the past year the number did not
increase significantly.
The majority of the rise over the last 10 years came from
entrants to general engineering courses, which has seen
a larger increase (33.0%) overall than other postgraduate
research engineering subjects, although numbers fell by
3.7% between 2017 to 2018 and 2018 to 2019.
There has been a reduction in entrants to electronic and
electrical engineering courses across all levels. Interestingly,
the number of professional electronics and electrical
engineers in the labour market has slightly increased since
2011 to 2012,4.56 so the fall in students isn’t necessarily due to
any decreased labour demand.
Across all levels of study, the number of
entrants to electronic and electrical
engineering courses has decreased over
the past 10 years.
4.54 The LEO data links education, tax and benefits data to chart the transition of graduates from higher education into the workplace.
4.55 DfE. ‘Graduate outcomes (LEO): postgraduate outcomes in 2016 to 2017’ data, 2019.
4.56 Nomis. ‘Annual Population Survey employment by occupation – Oct 2011 to Sep 2019’ [online], accessed 28/01/2020.
113
Figure 4.12 Engineering and technology postgraduate research entrants over time by principal subject (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
General engineering
Civil engineering
Mechanical engineering
Aerospace engineering
Electronic and electrical engineering
Production and manufacturing engineering
Chemical, process and energy engineering
All other engineering subjects
Technology subjects
2018/19
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19' data, 2011 to 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into
‘All other engineering subjects’.
‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
To view numbers associated with this chart and engineering and technology postgraduate research qualifiers over time by gender, ethnic group, POLAR4 status, disability and domicile,
see Figure 4.12-4.12a in our Excel resource.
4.4 – Engineering and technology students by
gender
As discussed in the introduction, the representation of women
in engineering and technology HE is particularly low, which is in
stark contrast to the high proportion of women in HE overall.
Efforts to increase engineering participation by women are
made more difficult by existing stereotypes of the profession
that may be ingrained from an early age. For example, girls
aged between 11 and 19 were more likely than boys to say that
engineering was “dirty, greasy or messy” and were more likely
than boys to report low levels of self-efficacy in the subject
than boys, according to EngineeringUK’s Engineering Brand
Monitor.4.57
About the data
The gender data in this chapter includes only those
classified as ‘male’ or ‘female’ within the HESA record.
This means that those who were recorded as ‘other’ are
excluded from the analysis. This is because the numbers
indicating ‘other’ were extremely low.
We recognise that gender is not binary and that there are
several different terms associated with the ‘other’ gender.
However, for the purposes of this analysis – to outline the
gender imbalance in engineering HE – we feel that using
only male and female respondents is appropriate.
Participation
As Figure 4.13 shows, the gender disparity in HE has remained
steady since the academic year 2009 to 2010, with women
making up between 56.1% and 57.2% of the population each
year. There are many possible reasons for this. Several sources
have cited the difference in educational attainment in
secondary school between girls and boys as a leading
cause.4.58 Chapter 2 showed that this is still very much the case
in 2018 to 2019, with girls outperforming boys in the majority of
school subjects, including STEM areas.
Given their performance in STEM subjects at secondary
school, it is curious, then, that girls are so underrepresented in
engineering and technology courses at university. What is it
exactly about engineering that is preventing girls from
applying?
The trend does not show any signs of stopping. The most
recent data available from UCAS covering the full 2019 cycle
indicates that there were 1.56 million applications from
women, compared with 1.17 million applications from men to
all subjects and courses in higher education.4.59 This is in stark
contrast to engineering and technology, where there were just
32,865 applications from women (19.5%) and 168,240
applications from men.4.60
At 20.7%, the proportion of engineering
and technology entrants that were
women in 2018 to 2019 was the highest
it’s ever been (up 4.8 percentage points
from 2010 to 2011).
4.57 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor 2019’, 2019.
4.58 HEPI. ‘Boys to Men: The underachievement of young men in higher education – and how to start tackling it’, 2016.
4.59 UCAS. ‘End of cycle report 2019’ data, 2019.
4.60 Ibid.
114
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Figure 4.13 Female students as a share of engineering and
technology entrants and HE students overall over time (2009/10
to 2018/19) – UK
Engineering and
technology entrants
Year
Case study – FemEng society at University
of Glasgow
Penny Morton, President, FemEng, University of Glasgow
All students
Total
Female (%)
Total
Female (%)
2009/10
69,085
16.3%
2,493,415
56.6%
2010/11
68,060
15.9%
2,501,285
56.4%
2011/12
68,025
16.2%
2,496,630
56.4%
2012/13
61,930
16.6%
2,339,850
56.2%
2013/14
64,430
17.3%
2,299,125
56.1%
2014/15
65,900
18.0%
2,265,705
56.2%
2015/16
65,545
18.3%
2,280,350
56.5%
2016/17
64,435
19.2%
2,316,855
56.7%
2017/18
64,375
19.7%
2,341,385
57.0%
2018/19
64,385
20.7%
2,381,410
57.2%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
Total figures and percentages calculated using these figures do not include those who
indicated their gender as ‘other’.
There has, however, been a minor improvement in terms of the
proportion of female engineering and technology entrants
across all levels of study, with women making up 20.7% of all
engineering and technology entrants in the academic year
2018 to 2019 (Figure 4.13).
It is promising that the 2018 to 2019 figures for female entrants
into engineering and technology HE are the highest on record,
which represents an increase of 4.8 percentage points since
2010 to 2011. This may be indicative of concerted efforts to
improve gender diversity within engineering over the past 10
years and the introduction of targeted messaging through
various campaigns to increase the representation of women in
STEM more generally.
However, the rise in female entrants to engineering and
technology subjects has not been fast enough. Women are still
severely underrepresented in engineering and technology, and
if the current trend continues, engineering and technology at
HE level will not achieve gender parity for at least another 3
decades.
If the proportion of women in
engineering continues to increase
at its current rate, there will not be
gender equality until after 2050.
FemEng is a network that aims to promote and support
women in engineering by connecting women in the School
of Engineering at the University of Glasgow. The group has
several focuses including: outreach work with schools;
networking events with industry professionals; mentoring
schemes; discussion panels; social activities; and
international collaborations.
FemEng successfully pioneered ‘FemEng in Rwanda’, the
University’s first student-led learning project in
collaboration with the University of Rwanda. This initiative
brought together female engineering students at both
universities with the common goal of encouraging more
high school girls in Rwanda to pursue further STEM
education. This project led to an increase of over 100% in
engineering applications to the University of Rwanda.
Following on from this success, we have recently launched
‘FemEng in Malawi’.
FemEng membership and activities are open to everyone
and we are pleased this year to have welcomed several
male members and students from all STEM backgrounds,
not just engineering. FemEng believes it’s important for a
diverse range of voices to be included in the discussion
around the gender imbalance in engineering.
The FemEng network will continue to grow through school
and industry visits, and collaboration with supporting
organisations such as Equate Scotland, Athena SWAN and
the Women’s Engineering Society. Furthermore, the
society will continue to work closely with industry and is
exploring the possibility of expanding the mentoring
scheme to include industry mentors. This aims to reduce
the large proportion (73%) of women who qualify with a
degree in a STEM subject but choose to leave the industry
within the first 10 years of graduating. 4.61
FemEng will continue to strive to encourage diversity and
inclusion while working further in the coming year towards
ensuring our society is welcoming to the LGBTQ+
community.
115
This is encouraging as it suggests that the experience of
studying undergraduate engineering does not put women
off from pursuing further study in the subject. Notably, the
difference in proportions of female entrants between
undergraduate and postgraduate degrees was larger for
engineering and technology than it was for STEM, and also
larger than for all subjects combined. Several universities
have recognised the importance of attracting women onto
postgraduate engineering courses, with the University of
Manchester, for example, offering a fully funded PhD
specifically for exceptional female engineering candidates.4.63
The engineering subject with the largest number of first degree
entrants – mechanical engineering – also had the lowest
proportion of female entrants in 2018 to 2019, with women
making up just 10.8% of entrants. Chemical, process and
energy engineering was the most popular first engineering
degree for women (28.7% female entrants in 2018 to 2019)
and this subject seemed to remain popular up to
postgraduate levels.
As a whole, engineering and technology fared far worse than
STEM overall for female representation across all levels of
study, as shown in Figure 4.14. In STEM subjects, women
accounted for just over half of all entries at first degree level
(51.3%), 58.8% of postgraduate taught entries and 46.0% of
postgraduate research entries.
It is true that of the 6 subjects with the lowest proportions of
female entrants in 2018 to 2019, 5 were STEM areas, showing
that the issue is not unique to engineering. Nevertheless,
computer science and engineering and technology fare far
worse than the other STEM areas. Interestingly, subjects allied
to medicine – a STEM area – have the highest proportion of
female first degree entrants of all subjects, demonstrating that
it is not necessarily STEM as a whole that struggles to attract
women. Veterinary sciences, agriculture and related subjects,
biological sciences, and medicine and dentistry all have a
higher-than-average proportion of women in HE.4.64, 4.65
There are several possible reasons for the underrepresentation
of women in engineering and computer science, both at
university and in the sector itself. One is that the lack of visible
role models may cause women to feel that a career in these
areas is not for them. Indeed, a 2015 paper suggested that
underrepresentation can itself perpetuate future
underrepresentation, and that if girls do not see computer
scientists and engineering as people they identify with, they
may be more reluctant to enter these fields.4.66
This is pertinent in the HE sector, as there are large imbalances
within STEM subjects in academia. Just 34.8% of academic
staff in biological, mathematical and physical sciences are
women, and only 21.0% of engineering and technology
academic staff are women.4.67 Women are also less likely to be
promoted into leadership positions and they leave academia in
larger proportions than men at every step of the postgraduate
ladder.4.68, 4.69
There has been a lot of work within the HE sector to attempt to
address some of the gender imbalances in STEM academia.
One of the most prominent is the Athena SWAN Charter, which
was introduced in 2005. More information on this Charter is
included in the case on page 117.
Figure 4.14 Female HE entrants by subject area, principal subject and level of study (2018/19) – UK
First degree
undergraduate
Other undergraduate
Principal subject
Total Female (%)
Chemical, process and energy engineering
2,865
28.7%
50
Technology subjects
1,670
28.2%
930
26.2%
General engineering
5,785
All other engineering subjects
Total Female (%)
Postgraduate taught
Total Female (%)
Postgraduate research
Total Female (%)
29.2%
1,285
30.5%
550
32.9%
750
17.8%
2,015
41.9%
410
33.8%
145
24.3%
460
19.6%
60
19.5%
22.6%
1,230
16.3%
2,205
30.8%
1,280
28.6%
Civil engineering
5,395
20.2%
380
12.7%
3,270
33.8%
465
28.0%
Subject comparison
Production and manufacturing engineering
1,135
19.1%
295
8.7%
1,240
29.8%
170
22.8%
While there is a known gender disparity across many STEM
areas, it is particularly acute in engineering and technology.
Out of the 19 broad subject areas in HE, engineering and
technology ranks second to last in terms of female
representation and only marginally higher than computer
science (20.7% of engineering and technology entrants across
all levels were women in 2018 to 2019 compared with 20.3% of
computer science entrants).4.62
Aerospace engineering
3,450
15.1%
185
8.7%
935
17.2%
180
12.2%
Electronic and electrical engineering
5,985
13.3%
1,055
6.7%
3,300
28.1%
945
23.1%
9,370
10.8%
685
8.7%
2,720
12.3%
660
20.6%
37,185
17.6%
4,935
12.7%
17,525
28.1%
4,735
26.5%
Even within engineering there are major differences in female
representation by subject and level of study. For example,
women make up a far larger proportion of engineering and
technology entrants into postgraduate courses than into
undergraduate courses. Across all engineering and technology
subjects in 2018 to 2019, women made up over one quarter of
postgraduate entries (28.1% of postgraduate taught and 26.5%
of postgraduate research) compared with just 17.6% of first
4.61 RSE. ‘Tapping all our talents’, 2018.
4.62 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
degree entries and 12.6% of other undergraduate entries
(Figure 4.14).
Mechanical engineering
All engineering and technology
All STEM
256,890
51.3%
50,705
67.6%
124,100
58.8%
24,040
46.0%
All subjects
568,475
56.3%
105,555
66.0%
335,080
61.5%
37,010
49.0%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Total figures and percentages calculated do not include those who indicated their gender as ‘other’.Totals and percentages for ‘All engineering and technology’, ‘All STEM’ and ‘All subjects’ use
the published HESA data, whereas those for the detailed engineering subjects exclude students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London
South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019. This means that the
subtotals for engineering subjects do not sum to the ‘All engineering and technology’ total. Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering
and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into ‘All other engineering subjects’. ‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within
technology detailed in Figure 4.3. To view a more detailed breakdown of HE entrants by subject area, gender and level of study, see Figure 4.14 in our Excel resource. Figure 4.14 also includes
comparisons for all university subjects.
4.63 University of Manchester Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering. ‘Funding for postgraduate research’ [online] accessed 15/04/2020.
4.64 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.65 For a full subject comparison by gender, please view Figure 4.14a in the Excel resource.
4.66 Cheryan, S. et al. ‘Cultural Stereotypes as Gatekeepers: Increasing Girls’ Interest in Computer Science and Engineering by Diversifying Stereotypes’, Front. Psychol., 2015.
4.67 HESA. ‘HESA staff record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.68 The Guardian. ‘Universities need to promote more women to professor’ [online], accessed 31/01/2019.
4.69 Royal Society of Biology. ‘Women in academic STEM careers’, 2013.
116
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Case study – Athena SWAN Charter
Figure 4.15 Engineering and technology first degree qualifiers
by degree class and gender (2018/19) – UK
Ruth Gilligan, Assistant Director for Equality Charters,
Advance HE
4.5 – Engineering and technology students by
ethnicity
First class honours
Within the United Kingdom as a whole, the ethnic make-up of
the population has changed significantly over the past 30
years,4.73 which has been reflected in the make-up of both
school students (in 2018 to 2019, 27% of pupils in state-funded
schools were from minority ethnic backgrounds4.74) and
university students. Indeed, those from minority ethnic
backgrounds are actually overrepresented in HE (Figure 4.16).
Founded in 2005, the Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s
Academic Network) Charter was set up as a framework
and award scheme to recognise excellence in STEM
employment for women in UK HE. It is highly successful,
having grown from 10 founding university members to 167
in the UK and Ireland. The methodology is recognised
internationally for its success in effecting cultural and
systemic change that leads to gender equality, and there
are now local iterations in Australia, the US and Canada.
The Charter is owned and managed by Advance HE
(previously the Equality Challenge Unit).
In response to demand from the HE sector, the Athena
SWAN Charter expanded its focus in 2015 to include arts,
humanities, social science, business and law (AHSSBL)
disciplines and to address any form of gender imbalance.
The expanded Charter now considers professional and
support staff alongside students and academic and
research staff, and requires institutions to consider trans
people and intersectionality (specifically intersections of
race with gender).
Athena SWAN member institutions commit to 10
underpinning principles.4.70 Their progress in addressing
gender equality is recognised through awards that
recognise the steps they take.
A recent impact evaluation carried out by Ortus Economic
Research and Loughborough University in 2019 found
strong evidence that the Charter’s processes and
methodologies have supported cultural and behavioural
change, not just around gender equality, but equality and
diversity in all its forms.4.71 Additionally, in submitting
departments, researchers observed a trend towards more
gender balanced promotions to senior lecturer/reader and
associate professor. In recruitment, they saw an
increasing trend in the percentages of women shortlisted
and appointed.
In 2020, Advance HE will implement a transformation plan
to update the Athena SWAN framework and processes in
response to recommendations from an independent 2019
impact evaluation and feedback from participating
institutions.
Attainment
In Chapter 2, we showed that girls outperform boys across
almost all STEM subjects at both GCSE and A level, and that
this difference is largest in elective STEM subjects. At GCSE,
for example, the gender gap in pass rates for engineering was
19.6 percentage points in the academic year 2018 to 2019, and
for design and technology the gap was 15.9 percentage points.
This tendency of women to outperform their male peers was
also found among those qualifying with a first degree in
engineering and technology in 2018 to 2019 (Figure 4.15).
40.5%
35.8%
Upper second class honours
41.2%
Participation
40.4%
Lower second class honours
15.9%
19.2%
Third class honours/pass
2.4%
4.6%
Female
Male
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages calculated do not include those who indicated their gender as 'other'.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
The gender gap in engineering subjects narrows in HE
compared with earlier stages of education (see Chapter 2).
This isn’t surprising, given that a good deal of academic
selectivity has already taken place by this point – in other
words, those doing university degrees will be the highest
academic performers and so differences between subgroups
will naturally be less pronounced. Nevertheless, women
graduating from engineering and technology first degrees had
higher average results than men, with 81.7% attaining a first or
upper second class honours, compared with 76.2% of men –
an attainment gap of 5.5 percentage points.
We can see this trend across all HE subjects, with 78.9% of
women achieving a first or upper second class degree in 2018
to 2019 compared with 73.8% of men.4.72 But it is still important
to note for engineering students. The fact that women in
engineering and technology are higher achieving than men
further strengthens the case for encouraging more women into
the workforce.
There was a higher proportion of
women achieving a 1st or 2:1 degree
in engineering and technology than
men, with a 5.5 percentage point
difference between the 2 groups.
About the data
Throughout this section, we will provide analysis to
compare those from White ethnic backgrounds with those
from minority ethnic backgrounds, who include Black
students, Asian students, Mixed ethnicity students and
those indicating their ethnicity as Other.
While EngineeringUK recognises the limitations of this, it
is a widely used approach to identify high level patterns of
difference in relation to ethnicity.
Furthermore, within the White ethnicity category there are
different nationalities and backgrounds that may also have
different bearings upon results, but in the context of
analysing ethnicity, we feel it is appropriate to group these
together.
In cases where there is a large variation in outcomes
between those from different ethnic groups we will
highlight this in the text. Further information on more
detailed ethnicity breakdowns can be found in the Excel
resource.
All analysis by ethnicity is necessarily restricted to UK
domiciled students in HE, because the HESA record
doesn’t capture the ethnic groups of international
students.
Despite the fact that just 9.0% of engineering professionals
were from minority ethnic backgrounds,4.75 29.9% of UK
domiciled entrants to engineering and technology courses
were from minority ethnic backgrounds in the academic year
2018 to 2019, showing that there is much potential to increase
the diversity of the engineering workforce.
Over the last 10 years, there has been
an 8.6 percentage point increase in
engineering and technology entrants
from minority ethnic backgrounds.
It also means that engineering and technology entrants were
more diverse in terms of ethnicity than the overall student
population. This has been the case for the past 10 years, with
the proportion of those from minority ethnic backgrounds in
engineering and technology courses rising steadily since 2010.
Indeed, the proportion of entrants from minority ethnic
backgrounds has increased by almost 9 percentage points
since 2009 to 2010.
All minority ethnic groups have observed an increase in
proportions of engineering and technology entrants. The
increase varies, however, with a 5.1 percentage points rise in
the proportion of engineering entrants from Asian
backgrounds, compared with a more modest increase of 0.7
percentage point for Black students. This rise in entrants from
minority ethnic backgrounds has meant that proportions of
White engineering entrants have decreased at a faster rate
than for the overall student population.
Figure 4.16 UK domiciled engineering and technology entrants over time by ethnicity (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
Engineering and technology entrants
All students
Total
(UK domiciled)
White
total (%)
Minority
ethnic
total (%)
Black (%)
Asian (%)
Mixed (%)
2009/10
41,665
78.7%
21.3%
6.8%
10.3%
2.7%
1.5%
2,013,100
18.1%
2010/11
40,010
79.0%
21.0%
6.7%
10.3%
2.7%
1.3%
2,017,950
18.4%
2011/12
41,720
78.0%
22.0%
6.6%
10.9%
2.9%
1.6%
2,014,885
18.8%
2012/13
36,415
76.7%
23.3%
6.8%
11.5%
2.9%
2.2%
1,876,235
19.6%
2013/14
37,300
75.8%
24.2%
7.1%
12.1%
3.0%
2.1%
1,830,230
20.2%
2014/15
38,445
74.7%
25.3%
7.1%
12.7%
3.1%
2.4%
1,795,910
21.0%
2015/16
39,435
72.6%
27.4%
7.4%
13.9%
3.5%
2.6%
1,812,990
21.8%
2016/17
39,010
71.2%
28.8%
7.9%
14.5%
3.7%
2.7%
1,844,770
22.7%
2017/18
38,515
70.3%
29.7%
7.8%
15.1%
3.8%
3.0%
1,854,853
23.6%
2018/19
36,830
70.1%
29.9%
7.5%
15.4%
4.1%
2.9%
1,869,210
25.6%
Year
Total
Other (%) (UK domiciled)
Proportion
minority
ethnic (%)
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19’ data, 2011 to 2020.
Totals and percentages presented in this figure for 2018/19 exclude engineering and technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and
London South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
4.70 ECU. ‘About Advance HE’s Athena SWAN Charter’ [online], accessed 18/03/2020.
4.71 Ortus Economic Research and Loughborough University. ‘An Impact Evaluation of the Athena SWAN Charter’, 2019.
4.72 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
117
4.73 T he most recent available national ethnicity data is the 2011 Census, which shows that from 1991 to 2011 the percentage of the population of England and Wales that identified as
White British decreased from 93% to 80%.
4.74 DfE. ‘Schools, pupils and their characteristics: January 2019’ data, 2019.
4.75 EngineeringUK. ‘Social mobility in engineering’, 2018.
118
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Subject comparison
Compared with the overall HE cohort, a higher proportion of
minority ethnic students entered engineering and technology
courses across all levels of study in 2018 to 2019, with the
exception of other undergraduate degrees. The same is true
when compared with the overall STEM cohort (Figure 4.17).
The proportions of entrants from minority ethnic backgrounds
was the same for engineering and technology first degrees and
postgraduate taught courses (32.5% of all entrants). However,
there was a far lower proportion of entrants from minority
ethnic backgrounds starting other undergraduate degrees
(10.6%) and a slightly lower proportion starting postgraduate
research degrees (25.1%). This trend is true for all subjects in
HE, but the disparity between other undergraduate entrants
and all other levels of study for engineering subjects is
particularly stark.
With 32.5% of first degree entrants from minority ethnic
backgrounds in 2018 to 2019, engineering and technology is
one of the most ethnically diverse subject areas in HE, behind
only medicine and dentistry, business and administrative
studies, and law.4.76 Just 27.8% of STEM first degree entrants
were from minority ethnic backgrounds and 26.7% of all first
degree entrants.
Chemical, process and energy engineering had the highest
proportion (45.3%) of first degree entrants, postgraduate
taught entrants (49.1%) and postgraduate research entrants
(33.6%) from minority ethnic backgrounds. When considered
alongside the fact that it had the highest proportion of women
(Figure 4.14, section 4.4), this shows it is extremely diverse
compared with other engineering areas. However, at other
undergraduate level there were no entrants from minority
ethnic backgrounds into chemical, process and energy
engineering courses.
The relative popularity of engineering and technology among
those from minority ethnic backgrounds – particularly men –
has been discussed in wider research. For example, a study by
the Runnymede Trust shows that engineers ranked second in
terms of job choices for pupils from Mixed, Bangladeshi, Black
Caribbean and Black African backgrounds.4.77 Notably,
however, this was only among boys from these backgrounds.
Across all ethnic groups surveyed, girls did not include
engineering in their top 5 job choices, suggesting there is an
interplay between gender and ethnicity in subject and career
choices.
EngineeringUK’s Engineering Brand Monitor provided further
evidence to show that there is a relationship between ethnicity
and potential career choices.4.78 Among students aged
between 11 and 19, those from a minority ethnic background
were more likely to pick ‘doctor’ or ‘lawyer’ as their top job
choice, whereas those from White backgrounds were more
likely to pick ‘vet’, or ‘childcare/education’. Given that medicine
and dentistry along with law have the highest proportions of
entrants from minority ethnic backgrounds, this indicates that
school level career choices may well extend through to
university. 4.79
Figure 4.17 UK domiciled HE entrants from minority ethnic backgrounds by subject area, principal subject and level of study
(2018/19) – UK
First degree
undergraduate
Other undergraduate
Postgraduate taught
Postgraduate research
Studies show that young people from
minority ethnic backgrounds tend to have
higher aspirations – both educationally
and occupationally – than their White
British peers, which is linked to subject
choice.
One possible reason minority ethnic students may be more likely
to study STEM subjects in school and HE could be related to
parental and student attitudes and behaviours. A number of
studies indicate that both young people from minority ethnic
backgrounds and their parents generally have higher
educational and occupational aspirations than their White peers,
and have linked these to both subject choice and educational
achievement.4.81, 4.82
It may seem that if pupils hold on to their early career aspirations
up until university, the future of engineering HE will be
characterised by an even wider ethnic diversity, which one may
expect to translate into a more diverse workforce. Unfortunately,
despite the high proportions of those from minority ethnic
backgrounds in HE, employment outcomes vary widely between
White and minority ethnic students.
Principal subject
Total
Minority
ethnic (%)
Chemical, process and energy engineering
1,970
45.3%
Aerospace engineering
2,485
39.6%
160
8.6%
235
32.3%
60
22.6%
EngineeringUK’s 2018 State of Engineering report showed that
among full time UK domiciled engineering and technology
leavers who graduated in 2016, nearly two-thirds (65.6%) of
White graduates had secured full-time employment, compared
with less than half (48.6%) of minority ethnic graduates.4.83
Electronic and electrical engineering
3,420
34.0%
955
5.2%
495
41.0%
310
27.1%
Attainment
680
32.4%
95
4.4%
180
18.6%
35
15.2%
Civil engineering
3,965
31.6%
355
13.4%
920
39.7%
170
23.8%
General engineering
4,685
31.3%
765
7.7%
850
25.9%
500
22.9%
Mechanical engineering
6,815
30.9%
605
6.1%
745
35.8%
300
24.7%
The proliferation of students from different ethnic backgrounds
entering into the UK HE system is a positive trend, but research
shows there is a large difference in how they experience HE, in
terms of retention, outcomes and progression.4.84
Technology subjects
1,190
21.1%
570
8.9%
935
19.2%
215
13.8%
All other engineering subjects
Production and manufacturing engineering
All engineering and technology
Total
Minority
ethnic (%)
Total
Minority
ethnic (%)
Total
Minority
ethnic (%)
35
0.0%
435
49.1%
220
33.6%
880
17.9%
280
51.6%
265
35.6%
70
30.9%
24,900
32.5%
3,265
10.6%
4,125
32.5%
1,660
25.1%
All STEM
213,930
27.8%
44,320
17.4%
78,910
21.5%
13,290
19.1%
All subjects
460,140
26.7%
84,280
15.9%
187,035
23.0%
20,520
19.3%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into ‘All other
engineering subjects’. ‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
Totals and percentages calculated in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London
South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
To view a more detailed breakdown of HE entrants by subject area, ethnicity and level of study, see Figure 4.17 in our Excel resource. Figure 4.17 also includes comparisons for all university
subjects.
4.76 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.77 Runnymede Trust. ‘Occupational aspirations of children from primary school to teenage years across ethnic groups’, 2018.
4.78 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering Brand Monitor 2019’, 2019.
4.79 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’, 2020.
119
Minority ethnic students are also more likely to study STEM at
school and HE level than their White peers, though this is not
necessarily the case for all ethnic groups. While Indian, Pakistani
and ‘other ethnicity’ students are more likely to study STEM A
levels than students from different ethnic backgrounds, there
are particularly low levels of uptake by Black African and
Caribbean students.4.80
There are stark differences between ethnic groups in terms of
retention. Black Caribbean students are far more likely not to
continue with their HE studies than White and Asian students.4.85
The degree class they achieve also differs. The proportion of
students from minority ethnic backgrounds across all of HE
achieving a first or upper second class degree is lower than their
White peers, regardless of entry qualifications. Given the
difference isn’t explained by factors such as age, gender, course
or prior attainment, OfS suggests that this may be explained by
factors such as institutional structures and curriculum.4.86
There are similar issues when looking at degree attainment
specifically for engineering and technology qualifiers. Of those
qualifying from first degree engineering and technology courses
in 2018 to 2019, 83.5% of White students achieved a first or
upper second class degree, compared with 73.7% of students
from minority ethnic backgrounds (Figure 4.18).
Figure 4.18 UK domiciled engineering and technology first
degree qualifiers by degree class and ethnic group (2018/19) – UK
First class honours
43.7%
29.5%
Upper second class honours
39.8%
44.2%
Lower second class honours
14.1%
21.5%
Third class honours/pass
2.3%
4.7%
White
Minority ethnic
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages in this chart are calculated using total UK domiciled engineering and technology
qualifiers from higher education in 2018/19.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
To view a detailed breakdown by ethnicity, see Figure 4.18 in our Excel resource.
Figure 4.18 shows that the difference in proportions of White
students and minority ethnic students receiving first class
degrees is particularly stark, with 43.7% of White students
achieving a first, compared with just 29.5% of those from
minority ethnic backgrounds.
Furthermore, using only the broad ‘minority ethnic’ category
masks significant variation between ethnic groups. Just 65.9%
of Black students who qualified in engineering in 2018 to 2019
attained a first or upper second class degree, compared with
76.1% of Asian students.4.87
This observation holds across HE more widely. Just 58.9% of
Black students attained a first or upper second class degree in
2018 to 2019, compared with 70.6% of Asian students and
80.5% of White students.4.88 However, what this also shows is
that those from minority ethnic backgrounds are higher
achieving and the ethnicity attainment gap is lower in
engineering and technology subjects than across HE as a
whole.
4.80 C odiroli Mcmaster, N. ‘Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and
ethnicity in determining choice’, Br. Educ. Res. J., 2017.
4.81 Ibid.
4.82 S trand, S. ‘The limits of social class in explaining ethnic gaps in educational attainment’. Br. Educ. Res. J., 2011.
4.83 EngineeringUK. ‘Engineering UK: The state of engineering 2018’, 2018.
4.84 O fS. ‘Topic briefing: Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) students’, 2018.
4.85 Ibid.
4.86 Ibid.
4.87 For a full analysis of degree class by ethnicity please view Figure 4.18 in our Excel resource.
4.88 H ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
120
4 – Higher education
Reasons for the ethnicity attainment gap are not fully
understood, but there are a number of initiatives in place to try
to understand it more fully and to address it. A 2019 report by
Universities UK suggested that collecting and disseminating
more granular data on attainment and ethnicity could inform
targeted interventions.4.89 This recommendation has since
been echoed by the Higher Education Policy Institute in a 2019
paper, which suggested that “each university will have to take
an evidence-based approach to tacking the BME attainment
gap”.4.90
4 – Higher education
Engineering and technology students
from minority ethnic backgrounds
were much less likely than White
students to achieve a 1st or 2:1 degree
(9.8 percentage point difference).
Case study – The SESTEM project at
University of Reading
Dr Billy Wong, Associate Professor in Widening
Participation, University of Reading
The Student Experience in STEM degree (SESTEM) project
is a 3-year longitudinal qualitative research study based at
the University of Reading (from 2018 to 2021) that aims to
better understand the experiences of undergraduate
STEM students from minority ethnic backgrounds.
The SESTEM project focuses on minority ethnic students
in STEM degrees, where there is a narrower degree
outcome gap than for non-STEM subjects. The Equality
Challenge Unit has speculated that differences in
assessment types between STEM and non-STEM degrees
might be responsible for this narrower gap.4.91
By understanding students’ experiences, views and
reflections over time, we aim to build empirical and
contextual evidence to support the University’s aspiration
to eliminate the ethnicity degree outcome gap. Data
analysis is currently underway. However, we have already
made the following recommendations, which have
informed and supported existing and future practices:
• Welcome Week should include a dedicated session on
equality and inclusion to highlight diversity at university
and the importance of mutual respect and
understanding. The aim is to provide the appropriate
vocabulary for all undergraduates, including a refresher
day for returning students.
• Staff training and development should have a clear
focus on diversifying the curriculum, with examples
from experts in STEM teaching and learning. There
should also be mandatory staff workshops on racial and
ethnic awareness.
• Consider compulsory and timetabled tutorials to reduce
stigma for students to seek support and ask for help.
• There must be a strong and continuous campaign to
raise the profile of the university’s commitment to racial,
ethnic and cultural equality.
4.89 Universities UK. ‘Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic student attainment at UK universities: #closing the gap’, 2019.
4.90 HEPI. ‘The White elephant in the room: ideas for reducing racial inequalities in higher education’, 2019.
4.91 AdvanceHE. ‘Degree attainment gaps’ [online], accessed 26/03/2020.
121
4.6 – Engineering and technology students by
socioeconomic status
Within the United Kingdom, students from disadvantaged
backgrounds have been shown to have worse outcomes in
educational attainment and in later life, both in terms of
employment and earnings. 4.92, 4.93 This is discussed in detail in
Chapter 1 in terms of STEM education at secondary school
level, which is vital for attracting those from different
socioeconomic backgrounds onto engineering and technology
HE courses.
About the data
The majority of analysis relating to socioeconomic status
within this chapter uses POLAR4, a measure of university
attendance based on the areas where students live. It uses a
geographical unit called the middle layer super output area
that usually consists of around 5,000 to 7,000 residents in
England and Wales,4.95 and is used to report on small area
statistics.
The POLAR4 data reports on students who began their
studies between the academic years 2009 to 2010 and 2013
to 2014.
The measure has been derived by ranking areas by
participation rate and splitting these into 5 quintiles, each of
which represents one fifth of the young population.4.96 In this
section, students are defined as being from a ‘low
participation neighbourhood’ if they live in an area that falls
into quintile 1 (the 20% of areas with the lowest participation
in the country).
POLAR4 is commonly used by the HE sector as an indicator
of access to university across the country and a young
person’s socioeconomic background. However, this
measure has recognised limitations.
There are, for example, known issues of accuracy in cities,
where there can be a huge variation in housing in the same
middle layer super output area. As a recent report by NEON
on HE access by disadvantaged White students noted:
“London has less than 13 Low Participation Neighbourhood
areas which means that many students from the capital
from lower socioeconomic groups are hidden from view”.4.97
Similarly, a research paper by academics from Sheffield
Hallam University suggested that: “Low participation
neighbourhoods have a questionable diagnostic value, with
more disadvantaged families living outside them than within
them”. Additionally, POLAR4 does not take other individual or
household measures of socioeconomic status into account,
such as household income or parental education status.
At present, those from disadvantaged backgrounds fare worse
in the HE system in terms of access to HE, degree outcomes
and retention. Analysis currently underway by Liverpool
University for the Royal Academy of Engineering shows that
engineering and technology students from disadvantaged
backgrounds are more likely than other students to drop out of
their degree before completing it. 4.94
We use POLAR4 data in this chapter as a proxy for
socioeconomic status, because it is the socioeconomic
indicator in the HESA data with the highest coverage
(compared with other indicators outlined below) and it is the
measure used by the Office for Students to investigate
disadvantage.
There are other indicators in the HESA data that allow an
examination of socioeconomic status:
• Parental education: this measure asks students whether
any of their parents or legal guardians have any HE
qualifications
• Socioeconomic status (SES): this measure asks students
under 21 to provide information on the occupations of
their parents (or other guardians or carers), which HESA
uses to derive the National Statistics Socio-economic
Classification (NS-SEC)4.98 of their parents (based on
standard occupational codes). For students over 21, it
asks for their own NS-SEC using the same classification,
so these students have been excluded from this analysis
because this does not provide a measure of social
background
These measures also have limitations. For example, there is
a high degree of missing information in the SES variable
across those both under and over 21, and from non-UK
domiciled students in the parental education variable. We
have touched on these measures in this section.
Coverage
Due to a recent change in the licensing of postcode data for
Northern Ireland, it is not possible to assign students from
Northern Ireland into a POLAR4 quintile because HESA is
unable to provide aggregated postcode data for the region.
For that reason, students from Northern Ireland are excluded
from POLAR4 analysis in this section. Because it is a
measure based on UK areas, data on non-UK domiciled
students is also excluded. Those with unknown POLAR4
status are also excluded.
Moreover, socioeconomic class and disadvantage is a
complex and multifaceted concept, and participation in HE is
just one indicator of this.
4.92 EPI. ‘Key drivers of the disadvantage gap’, 2018.
4.93 DfE. ‘Post-16 education outcomes for disadvantaged students’, 2018.
4.94 RaEng. ‘UK UG Engineering Students’ demographics and qualifications: from admissions through progression to graduation’, forthcoming.
4.95 ONS. ‘Census geography’ [online], accessed 20/04/2020.
4.96 OfS. ‘Young participation by area’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.97 NEON. ‘Working class heroes: understanding access to higher education for white students from lower socio-economic backgrounds’, 2019.
4.98 ONS. ‘The National Statistics Socio-economic classification (NS-SEC)’ [online], accessed 30/04/2020.
122
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Participation
Figure 4.19 UK domiciled engineering and technology HE entrants from low participation neighbourhoods over time (2014/15 to
2018/19) – UK
Engineering and technology entrants
Figure 4.20 UK domiciled HE entrants from low participation neighbourhoods by subject area, principal subject and level of study
(2018/19) – UK
First degree
undergraduate
All entrants
UK domiciled entrants (No.)
Low participation
neighbourhood (%)
UK domiciled entrants (No.)
Low participation
neighbourhood (%)
2014/15
41,260
11.0%
723,582
12.0%
Principal subject
2015/16
37,960
10.9%
728,784
12.1%
All other engineering subjects
2016/17
35,620
11.3%
745,358
12.1%
2017/18
35,965
11.0%
743,372
12.3%
Electronic and electrical
engineering
2018/19
35,705
11.3%
732,357
12.6%
Year
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2016 to 2020.
Totals and percentages presented in this figure for 2018/19 exclude engineering and technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and
London South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
Figure 4.19 outlines the proportions of engineering and
technology entrants in HE by socioeconomic status since the
academic year 2014 to 2015. There has been little change in the
make-up of entrants from low participation neighbourhoods in
that time, with only 11.3% of entrants in the academic year 2018
to 2019 coming from the areas of the UK with the lowest HE
participation.
If HE participation was equal across the different POLAR4
quintiles, we would expect to see around 20% of entrants
coming from the areas of lowest participation. The fact that just
11.3% of entrants into engineering and technology courses were
from these areas shows that as a subject, there is still some way
to go to bring about equality. However, the figure is not dissimilar
to the UK HE system as a whole, for which the proportion of
entrants from the lowest participation neighbourhoods sits far
below where it should – in 2018 to 2019, just 12.6% of entrants
into HE were from POLAR4 quintile 1.
This shows that although engineering does not fare well, it is a
systemic problem across the HE system, where there is a low
proportion of students from low participation neighbourhoods
across all degree subjects.
Looking at other socioeconomic measures, entrants into HE
engineering and technology courses in 2018 to 2019 were more
likely than the overall HE population to have parents or guardians
with a degree (64.6% compared with 57.6%, respectively) and to
have parents working in higher managerial, administrative and
professional occupations (57.3% and 53.4%, respectively)4.99, 4.100
Despite these figures, there is cause for optimism. Although
those from low participation neighbourhoods are
underrepresented in HE, their entry rates have been increasing
year on year: UCAS data shows that in the 2018 to 2019
academic year, the proportions of those living in POLAR4
quintile 1 areas that entered HE stood at 21.0%, up from 19.7% in
2017 to 2018.4.101 As a consequence, the ‘entry gap’ between
those from the lowest participation neighbourhoods and the
highest has been decreasing. Nevertheless, there still remains a
sizeable difference, with students in POLAR4 quintile 5 being
2.26 times more likely to enter HE than students in quintile 1 in
2018 to 2019.4.102
The gap on entry is more acute at institutions with high entry
tariffs. Young people from the areas of highest participation
(POLAR4 quintile 5) were 5.27 times more likely than those from
POLAR4 quintile 1 to enter these institutions. This gap has
decreased significantly since 2009 to 2010 when it was 8.41,
but it is still a stark reminder of the disparity seen at the most
‘selective’ institutions.4.103
Entrants into engineering and
technology courses were more likely
to have university-educated parents or
parents working in professional and
managerial roles than the overall HE
population.
Subject comparison
Engineering and technology fares worse than STEM overall in
terms of entrants from low participation areas into first degrees
and postgraduate taught courses, as well as falling below the
overall average for HE. Just 10.6% of engineering and
technology first degree entrants were from low participation
neighbourhoods, compared with 13.6% of STEM first degree
entrants and 13.0% of all first degree entrants (Figure 4.20).
Other undergraduate
Low
participation
neighbourhood
Total
(%)
Low
participation
neighbourhood
Total
(%)
Postgraduate taught
Low
participation
neighbourhood
Total
(%)
Postgraduate research
Low
participation
neighbourhood
Total
(%)
565
14.0%
85
15.1%
160
12.3%
25
5.9%
3,365
13.0%
960
18.0%
485
14.0%
315
9.2%
Technology subjects
1,180
13.0%
570
15.6%
900
10.3%
215
8.9%
General engineering
4,535
12.4%
810
20.5%
845
10.7%
495
10.3%
Civil engineering
3,760
10.4%
350
16.2%
895
9.4%
165
7.9%
840
10.0%
285
14.0%
255
14.1%
70
8.8%
Mechanical engineering
6,600
9.4%
565
17.8%
735
10.9%
280
12.2%
Aerospace engineering
2,440
8.5%
160
11.3%
230
7.0%
60
1.6%
Chemical, process and
energy engineering
1,915
7.6%
35
24.3%
435
8.7%
215
10.7%
25,195
10.6%
3,820
17.4%
4,935
10.6%
1,835
9.1%
All STEM
206,920
13.6%
43,925
16.4%
77,005
10.9%
13,190
8.7%
All subjects
446,690
13.0%
82,345
15.4% 182,890
10.9%
20,435
8.8%
Production and
manufacturing engineering
All engineering
and technology
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into ‘all other
engineering subjects’. ‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
Totals and percentages presented in this figure for 2018/19 exclude engineering and technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and
London South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
To view a more detailed breakdown of HE entrants by subject area, POLAR4 status and level of study, see Figure 4.20 in our Excel resource. Figure 4.20 also includes comparisons for all
university subjects.
There was also a large discrepancy between the different levels
of study, with those from low participation neighbourhoods
more likely to start an ‘other undergraduate’ degree than other
levels in 2018 to 2019. Among engineering and technology other
undergraduate entrants, 17.4% were from low participation
neighbourhoods, compared to just 10.6% of first degree and
postgraduate taught entrants, and only 9.1% of postgraduate
research entrants.
This underlines the point raised in section 4.3 about the
difference between these types of students and both first
degree undergraduates and postgraduates, and that the decline
of ‘other undergraduate’ courses in HE may have negative
ramifications for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
The difference in proportions from low participation
neighbourhoods between first degree and other undergraduate
entrants is much larger for engineering and technology courses
(6.8 percentage points difference) than it is for all subjects (2.4
percentage points difference). This shows that for engineering
and technology – more so than for other subject areas – other
undergraduate courses are the preferred option for those from
disadvantaged backgrounds who may not be ready to undertake
a full first degree.
Other undergraduate courses offer those from traditionally
lower participation areas the chance to pursue HE in a slightly
different manner to the first degree courses that the majority of
young people pursue. These courses can provide prospective
engineers with another route into the workforce, and for that
reason the engineering sector should work to halt their decline.
Other undergraduate courses include the higher technical
qualifications discussed in Chapter 3. So although numbers of
entrants to these courses in HE are decreasing, there may be a
sustained push from the FE sector to improve take up of these
types of degree.
Perhaps reflecting the different nature of each engineering
subject, the proportions of entrants from low participation
neighbourhoods in 2018 to 2019 varied depending on the
chosen subjects. First degree entrants from low participation
neighbourhoods were more likely to study ‘all other engineering
subjects’ (14.0% of entrants) and electronic and electrical
engineering (13.0% of entrants), whereas just 7.6% of first degree
entrants to chemical, process and energy engineering were
from low participation neighbourhoods (Figure 4.20).
4.99 HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.100 P
ercentages include only those aged 21 and under, and exclude those who said their parents occupations was ‘Not classified’ or ‘unknown’, and exclude those who’s parental
education status was unknown.
4.101 U
CAS data shows only the rates of entry for UK-domiciled 18 year olds.
4.102 U
CAS. ‘End of cycle report 2019’ data, 2019.
4.103 Ibid.
123
124
4 – Higher education
Comparison by university type
Differences between those from varying socioeconomic
backgrounds can also be seen in the type of universities they
attend. This is important because certain types of university –
notably institutions that sit in the Russell Group4.104 – have
higher entry tariffs. They also tend to be more selective than
others, attract the most funding and have a shared focus on
research and a reputation for academic achievement.4.105
Furthermore, graduates from Russell Group universities have
higher employment rates than other institutions. The 2016/17
Destinations of Leavers from HE survey of those graduating in
2012 to 2013 listed 15 Russell Group universities in the top 25
for rates of graduate employment.4.106
This is an issue because it may further perpetuate educational
‘disadvantage gaps’, which have been shown to start in early
years education in England and continue through to secondary
school.4.107
Given the strong demand for engineering skills, there is an
opportunity for engineering to be a vehicle for social mobility.
However, it is not enough to simply encourage more young
people from disadvantaged backgrounds to study engineering
in HE; we must also ensure that participation is widened
across all universities, including those that are most selective.
For engineering and technology entrants in particular, there
remains a difference in the types of universities that they
attend depending on whether they are from low participation
neighbourhoods (Figure 4.21). We refer to ‘university mission
groups’, which are sometimes used within the higher education
sector to distinguish groups of universities from one another.
Members of the same mission group often have similar
origins, size and ambitions, and not all universities are
necessarily members of a particular group.
Only 7.5% of engineering and technology
entrants to Russell group universities
were from low participation
neighbourhoods.
4 – Higher education
Figure 4.21 UK domiciled engineering and technology HE
entrants from low participation neighbourhoods by mission
group (2018/19) – UK
University Alliance
14.2%
Other
13.1%
Million Plus
11.8%
All mission groups
Not only do students from low participation areas enter into
engineering HE at lower rates than their more advantaged
peers, they also tend to achieve lower degree classes (Figure
4.22). This means that even among those who decide to
pursue engineering at the highest educational level, it is more
difficult for people from disadvantaged backgrounds to
subsequently enter into an engineering career.
Figure 4.22 UK domiciled engineering and technology first
degree qualifiers by degree class and POLAR4 status
(2018/19) – UK
First class honours
11.3%
37.3%
Guild HE
39.7%
9.2%
Russell Group
7.5%
1994 Group
7.0%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
Universities classed as 'Other' were those not included in any of mission groups
listed in the figure.
Figure 4.21 shows there is a large discrepancy in the
proportions of engineering and technology entrants from low
participation areas that attend different types of universities.
They account for only 7.0% of students attending the 1994
group – a now defunct group of smaller, research focussed
universities including the University of East Anglia and
Lancaster university – and 7.5% of Russell Group entrants. By
comparison, they make up 14.2% of entrants to universities in
the University Alliance mission group, which describes itself as
“the voice of professional and technical universities” and its
universities as institutions that “work with industry to … train
the workforce of tomorrow”.4.108
Upper second class honours
39.8%
41.2%
Lower second class honours
19.3%
Chapter 1 outlined the fact that disadvantaged young people
are more likely than their more advantaged peers to attend FE
institutions. Although University Alliance institutions offer HE
courses, they may be delivered with a greater vocational focus,
furthering the perception that more ‘academic’ and selective
courses are geared towards those from advantaged
backgrounds.
4.104 T
he Russell Group consists of 24 ‘world class’, ‘research intensive’ institutions in the UK that have a combined economic output of £32 billion and produce more than two thirds
of the UK’s world-leading research.
4.105 T
heUniGuide. ‘What is the Russell Group’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.106 H
ESA. ‘Destinations of leavers from higher education longitudinal survey’, 2017.
4.107 E
PI. ‘Education in England: annual report 2019’, 2019.
4.108 U
niversity Alliance. ‘The voice of professional and Technical universities’ [online], accessed 15/04/2020.
In recent years, significant provision has been made to ensure
rights and access for disabled people both in the workplace
and in education. 4.111, 4.112
For example, under the Equality Act 2010, HE institutions have
a duty to make reasonable adjustments in relation to the
provisions, criteria or practices, physical features and auxiliary
aids available to address any disadvantage that disabled
students may otherwise experience. In addition, they can treat
a disabled person more favourably than a non-disabled person
without this amounting to direct discrimination against the
non-disabled person.
Encouragingly, the number of students in HE recorded as
disabled has increased every year, as has the number of
disabled people in the workforce.4.117 It is, however, not clear to
what extent these increases represent a genuine rise in
participation or whether they instead demonstrate an
increased willingness to declare a disability, due to greater
inclusivity, awareness and provision.
Third class honours/pass
4.0%
3.1%
Low participation neighbourhood
4.7 – Engineering and technology students by
disability
Disabled students are eligible to receive Disabled Students’
Allowances (DSAs) to cover extra costs they may incur4.113
(although the extent to which this is sufficient, particularly
following cuts to the allowance in the academic years 2015 to
2016 and 2016 to 2017,4.114 has been questioned within the
sector).4.115 More recently, the creation of a Disabled Students’
Commission (DSC), a new independent and strategic group to
advise HEIs on support for disabled students, was announced
by the then Universities Minister in June 2019.4.116
16.0%
The contrast in the composition of entrants to the different
mission groups is interesting, especially given that University
Alliance group universities were the most popular among
engineering and technology entrants in the academic year
2018 to 2019. With 14.2% of their cohort being from low
participation neighbourhoods, this group is still
underrepresented within the University Alliance group, but they
are comparatively overrepresented in terms of HE overall.
125
Attainment
Other neighbourhood
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
Encouragingly, the attainment gap observed among
engineering and technology first degree qualifiers from
advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds appears to have
narrowed in recent years. In the academic year 2018 to 2019,
77.1% of qualifiers from low participation neighbourhoods
received a first or upper second class degree (up 3.0
percentage points from the previous year), compared with
80.9% of those from other neighbourhoods.
However, it must be remembered that a good deal of academic
selectivity has already taken place by this point, and work must
be done to address such gaps not only in higher education, but
also in earlier stages of STEM education. A 2016 study by
Banerjee, for instance, concluded that “there are a range of
factors linked to underachievement of disadvantaged pupils in
school science and maths”,4.109 and a 2019 report by the
Education Policy Institute highlighted that this attainment gap
in maths persisted in 2018 – from early years education until
the end of Key Stage 4 (GCSEs).4.110 Such gaps are likely to
constrain young people’s educational and career trajectories –
and, by extension, the degree to which we are able to harness
the potential engineering talent pool.
About the data
Our disability analysis is drawn from the HESA student
record, which asks students to indicate any physical or
mental impairments that have a substantial and long-term
adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-today activities. Students return this information on the
basis of their own self-assessment and can choose not to
disclose this information.
From 2010 to 2011, new entrants to the student record
were no longer able to be coded as information refused,
information not sought or not known. As a result, this
report uses the term ‘disabled students’ to refer to
students whose HESA student record indicates they are
disabled. ‘Non-disabled students’ is used to refer to
students who are not indicated as disabled, or whose
disability status is unknown by their institution.
Participation
Disabled students are clearly underrepresented within
engineering and technology compared with HE as a whole, at
just 7.5% in 2018 to 2019 compared with 12.0% across the HE
student population (Figure 4.23).
4.109 B
anerjee, P. A. ‘A systematic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools’, Cogent Educ., 2016.
4.110 E
PI. ‘Education in England: Annual report 2019’, 2019.
4.111 U
K Government. ‘Disability rights – Employment’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
4.112 U
K Government. ‘Disability rights – Education’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
4.113 U
K Government. ‘Disabled students allowances’ [online], accessed 18/02/2020.
4.114 D
fE. ‘Evaluation of disabled students’ allowances’, 2019.
4.115 P
olicy Connect. ‘Disabled Students’ allowances: Giving students the technology they need to succeed’, 2019.
4.116 A
dvance HE. ‘Disabled students commission’ [online], accessed 30/04/2020.
4.117 H
ouse of Commons Library. ‘People with disabilities in employment’, 2020.
126
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Given this, it is important that engineering and technology
departments work to cultivate a safe, inclusive environment
where students feel able to disclose a disability. They also
need to regularly assess what barriers – physical, procedural
or social – may be preventing disabled students from
participating and act to remove them or mitigate their effects.
Figure 4.23 Disabled students as a share of engineering and
technology entrants and HE entrants overall over time (2014/15
to 2018/19) – UK
Engineering and
technology entrants
Year
Just 7.5% of engineering and technology
entrants were disabled, compared to
12.0% of the overall HE population.
For instance, the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) has highlighted
the need to ensure that competence standards are nondiscriminatory.4.118 (These standards outline the level of ability
that a student must demonstrate on a course and are
particularly common in competence-led professions such as
engineering.) The ECU notes that where possible, reasonable
adjustments should be made to ensure such standards are
inclusive. For instance, the Engineering Council requires
accredited HE programmes to include an “understanding of
and ability to use relevant materials, equipment, tools,
processes or products”. However, a student with a physical
impairment may find it more difficult to use ‘relevant materials’
and a reasonable adjustment may be made to enable the
student to be assessed in this area.
Total Disabled (%)
2014/15
All entrants
Total Disabled (%)
65,910
6.1%
988,798
9.0%
2015/16
65,545
6.3%
992,424
9.7%
2016/17
64,460
6.8%
1,013,484
10.5%
2017/18
64,395
7.3%
1,023,362
11.2%
2018/19
63,575
7.5%
1,032,236
12.0%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2016 to 2020.
Due to a change in HESA coding rules, students who registered their disability as ‘unknown’
are classified as having no disability.
Totals and percentages presented in this figure for 2018/19 exclude engineering and
technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of
Worcester and London South Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to
organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to
2019.
Other
undergraduate
Postgraduate
taught
The relative lack of disabled entrants into engineering and
technology courses is likely to impact the future engineering
workforce. This is a concern because attracting more disabled
people could bring real benefits to employers, in addition to
those outlined in the introduction. An article by the Institution
of Mechanical Engineers described efforts made by the
engineering company Fujitsu to increase the proportion of its
workforce with a disability from 3% to 6% between 2014 and
2018, with the chair of Fujitsu UK outlining some of the specific
ways in which disabled employees can add value to the
company:4.119
The article also comments on other benefits, including
reaching more disabled customers as they are more likely to
engage with disabled employees.
Postgraduate
research
Total
Disabled (%)
Total
Disabled (%)
Total
Disabled (%)
Total
Disabled (%)
Technology subjects
1,670
14.2%
745
12.2%
2,020
8.7%
410
10.2%
Production and
manufacturing engineering
1,135
11.9%
300
8.1%
1,245
2.3%
165
4.2%
General engineering
5,785
10.9%
1,235
5.7%
2,200
4.9%
1,280
6.3%
935
9.9%
150
7.2%
465
4.6%
60
2.4%
Mechanical engineering
9,370
9.0%
690
5.5%
2,720
3.9%
660
5.3%
Electronic and electrical
engineering
5,995
8.8%
1,060
5.8%
3,305
3.2%
945
5.8%
Civil engineering
5,400
7.8%
380
6.6%
3,270
4.2%
470
6.2%
Aerospace engineering
3,455
7.8%
185
9.8%
935
3.0%
180
5.0%
Chemical, process and
energy engineering
2,865
6.8%
50
6.3%
1,290
5.5%
550
8.4%
36,615
9.2%
4,790
7.1%
17,445
4.5%
4,720
6.5%
All STEM
253,015
13.9%
48,635
10.0% 122,205
9.3%
24,035
8.9%
All subjects
560,020
13.0% 103,385
9.6% 331,840
8.8%
36,995
9.2%
All engineering and
technology
Although engineering and technology has lower proportions of
disabled entrants than HE in general, this varied considerably
by subject. For example, just 6.8% of chemical, process and
energy engineering first degree entrants were disabled,
compared with 14.2% of those studying technology (Figure
4.24). At higher levels of study, the proportion of students
declaring a disability declines, suggesting there may be
barriers to disabled students continuing on to advanced
degrees, something that appears to be true across all subjects.
• “People with dyslexia are often great at creative and visual
thinking, problem solving and are outcome orientated.”
Principal subject
All other engineering subjects
Engineering and technology is among the lowest-ranked of
all HE subject areas for entry by disabled students, with lower
proportions than the overall STEM and HE averages (Figure 4.24).
• “Neuro-diverse employees often bring a different thinking
style to projects, which helps innovation.”
Figure 4.24 Disabled HE entrants by principal subject and level of study (2018/19) – UK
First degree
undergraduate
Subject comparison
Disabled employees bring a range of
benefits to engineering employers, so
we must encourage more disabled
students into engineering and
technology HE.
The ‘Equal Engineers’ podcast recently featured an interview
with Simon Wilkins, a deaf engineer working for Bam Nuttall. In
this, he discusses his time at Newcastle University and the
support available as a student living with a disability status:4.120
“At university, I had Disabled Support Allowance … the support I
had in place was a note-taker, interpreters for group meetings
and discussions and also a radio aid”. However, Simon goes on
to say that “Newcastle University hadn’t previously
experienced having deaf students studying there, so I had to
provide them with a lot of advice and guidance to ensure I had
the correct support in place.”
Experiences such as this highlight the need to ensure
reasonable adjustments are in place and the positive
difference they can make to a disabled student’s studies.
Reasonable adjustments “remove or minimise disadvantages
experienced by disabled people” and are applicable both within
HE and the workplace.4.121
When disabled people do enter HE, they attain almost the
same level of ‘good’ degrees as non-disabled students. In 2018
to 2019, there was only a marginal difference in the proportion
of disabled (76.0%) and non-disabled (77.9%) engineering and
technology qualifiers achieving an upper second or first class
degree. However, non-disabled students were more likely to
achieve a first class degree than disabled students (37.9%
compared with 34.9% respectively).4.122
4.8 – Intersectionality
So far, this chapter has examined differences in HE
participation and attainment by individual characteristics, such
as gender, ethnicity or socioeconomic class. However, young
people’s identities are actually made up of a complex
combination of such characteristics, which overlap and
intersect in ways that can have important consequences for
their lives.
This ‘intersectionality’ is important because it can lead to
multiple disadvantages for some groups. Research from the
Social Mobility Commission in 2016 found large variations in
HE participation by different characteristics. For example, just
13% of White British students from the lowest socioeconomic
quintile attended university, compared with 66% of Chinese
students and 53% of Indian students, both from the lowest
quintile.4.123
The effects of intersectionality can also be seen in relation to
STEM. Research by Codiroli McMaster in 2017 showed that
while both gender and socioeconomic background
independently affect young people’s likelihood of studying
STEM in HE, these characteristics also interact. Young women
from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are less likely than
both their male counterparts and their more advantaged
female counterparts to pursue a STEM degree over other ‘high
return’ subjects.4.124
There is growing acknowledgement within the sector that this
issue must be addressed. In 2017, the Equality Challenge Unit
sought evidence on the diversity of staff and students related
to intersectionality, which led to the development of a suite of
case studies from universities and FE colleges.4.125
Participation
There is a clear need to investigate participation in HE – and
participation in engineering more specifically – by multiple
characteristics combined. This section will present an
overview of patterns of intersectionality among engineering
and technology HE students.
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Due to a change in HESA coding rules, students who registered their disability as ‘unknown’ are classified as having no disability.
Due to small numbers on courses, students studying ‘Broadly based programmes within engineering and technology’, ‘Naval architecture’ and ‘Others in engineering’ are grouped into ‘All other
engineering subjects’. ‘Technology subjects’ includes the 8 separate principal subjects within technology detailed in Figure 4.3.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South Bank
University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
To view a more detailed breakdown of HE entrants in 2018/19 by subject area, disability status and level, see Figure 4.24 in our Excel resource. Figure 4.24 also includes comparisons for all
university subjects.
4.118 E
CU. ‘Understanding the interaction of competence standards and reasonable adjustments’, 2015.
127
4.119 IMechE. ‘Changing attitudes to disability in engineering’ [online], accessed 03/02/2020.
4.120 E
qual engineers. ‘Disability in engineering – support, challenges and reaching potentials’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
4.121 A
cas. ‘Reasonable adjustments in the workplace’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
4.122 H
ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.123 S
ocial Mobility Commission. ‘Ethnicity, Gender and Social Mobility’, 2016.
4.124 C
odiroli Mcmaster, N. ‘Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and
ethnicity in determining choice’, Br. Educ. Res. J., 2017.
4.125 E
CU. ‘Intersectional approaches to equality and diversity’, 2018.
128
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Figure 4.25 Female UK domiciled engineering and technology
HE entrants by ethnicity (2018/19) – UK
Figure 4.26 UK domiciled HE entrants from low participation
neighbourhoods by ethnicity (2018/19) – UK
Mixed
Black
16.2%
21.8%
Black
15.4%
18.9%
Other
18.6%
Asian
18.0%
All ethnicities
17.1%
All ethnicities
11.3%
12.7%
These findings show that it is important to consider both
socioeconomic background and ethnicity when investigating
participation in STEM in HE. Some research suggests there is a
heightened drive and ambition among minority ethnic groups
to pursue social mobility as a result of recent minority ethnic
graduates being second generation migrants whose parents
experienced social demotion when they came to the UK.4.129
Minority ethnic students, including those from lower
socioeconomic backgrounds, could therefore be pursing
STEM education at higher rate than their White counterparts in
an attempt to enjoy the financial and wider benefits that STEM
careers can offer.
Attainment
White
Figure 4.27 UK domiciled engineering and technology first
degree qualifiers achieving a 1st or 2:1 degree by gender and
ethnicity (2018/19) – UK
11.3%
13.1%
White
16.4%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Total figures and percentages calculated using these figures do not include those who
indicated their gender as 'other'.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
There were a lower proportion of women
from White backgrounds starting
engineering and technology degrees
than there were among those from
minority ethnic backgrounds.
Interestingly, the gender divide among engineering entrants is
starkest among White students, with women comprising just
16.4% of all White UK domiciled entrants in 2018 to 2019. The
ethnic group whose entrants into engineering and technology
degrees were most likely to be women was mixed, with 21.8%
being women.
Although the percentage point differences between ethnic
groups in the proportion of entrants who are female are
modest (at a maximum of 5.4 percentage points difference),
the figures are still noteworthy. Previous research has
highlighted the possibility that the greater uptake of ‘high
return’ subjects, including STEM subjects, among minority
ethnic groups compared with their white peers could be
reflective of a conscious attempt to guard against additional
barriers in the labour market – minority ethnic students are
less likely to be unemployed after receiving their degree, for
example.4.126, 4.127 It could be that young women from minority
ethnic backgrounds are particularly attuned to these barriers
and the multiple intersecting disadvantages they might face in
the labour market, and so opt to pursue high return STEM
degrees at a greater rate than their White peers.
Mixed
10.7%
69.4%
11.8%
74.2%
83.4%
75.8%
81.0%
86.1%
83.8%
64.4%
Other
10.6%
8.9%
Asian
12.0%
4.8%
9.3%
9.0%
Engineering and technology
Other
All entrants
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University , University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
Figure 4.26 shows that in terms of entrants from low
participation neighbourhoods, engineering and technology
students do not differ too much from overall student figures,
but there are some notable differences.
White entrants from low participation neighbourhoods tended
to be slightly underrepresented on engineering and technology
courses in 2018 to 2019, whereas Black and Asian students
from low participation neighbourhoods, and those who
indicated their ethnicity as Other, –were marginally
overrepresented. As mentioned above, this could be due to an
ambition among particular minority ethnic groups to pursue
high return STEM subjects in order to protect against barriers
in the labour market. This seems plausible for Black students
and some Asian students, who tend to face challenging labour
market prospects: evidence from 2019 showed that graduates
with the lowest earnings were from the Other Black,
Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean groups.4.128
4.126 R
unnymede Trust. ‘When education isn’t enough: Labour market outcomes of ethnic minority graduates at elite universities’, 2014.
4.127 C
odiroli Mcmaster, N. ‘Who studies STEM subjects at A level and degree in England? An investigation into the intersections between students’ family background, gender and
ethnicity in determining choice’, Br. Educ. Res. J., 2017.
4.128 U
K Government. ‘Destinations and earnings of graduates after higher education’ [online], accessed 22/04/2020.
129
76.4%
80.1% 81.0%
88.7%
Male
0.9%
Black
Female
Mixed
7.6%
Asian
5.1%
All ethnicities
4.9%
White
Gender gap
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
Percentages in this chart are calculated using only male and female HE qualifiers,
excluding those who indicated their gender as 'other'.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
In sections 4.4 and 4.5, we showed that there was an
attainment gap between men and women, and also between
White students and those from other ethnic backgrounds
(Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.18). Figure 4.27 shows that there is
an even more complex dynamic at play, with the attainment
gap between men and women varying significantly between
different ethnicities.
In particular, Black men tend to do significantly worse than
Black women and the same holds true for Asian qualifiers. Just
64.6% of Black men taking engineering degrees achieved a
first or upper second class award, compared with 76.4% of
Black women, representing an attainment gap of 12.0
percentage points. This compares poorly with the overall
gender attainment gap for UK domiciled engineering qualifiers
of 5.1 percentage points (Figure 4.15).
It’s important to note, however, that the numbers of students
making up some of these groups are quite low – in particular
women from Mixed and Other backgrounds - but the results
are still interesting and provide food for thought.
These results are more notable when we compare them with
the attainment of all UK domiciled HE qualifiers in 2018 to 2019
(Figure 4.28).
Figure 4.28 UK domiciled first degree qualifiers achieving a
1st or 2:1 degree by gender and ethnicity (2018/19) – UK
Ethnicity
White
Male (%)
Female (%) Gender gap (%)
80.0%
83.9%
3.8%
Black
55.9%
62.7%
6.8%
Asian
69.2%
73.9%
4.7%
Mixed
74.7%
79.8%
5.1%
Other
68.4%
69.3%
0.9%
All ethnicities
77.0%
81.0%
4.0%
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
Percentages in this chart are calculated using only male and female HE qualifiers, excluding
those who indicated their gender as ‘other’.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
The gender attainment gap among all degree qualifiers was
narrower in each ethnic group in 2018 to 2019 than for
engineering and technology qualifiers. However, it is striking
that actual attainment by engineering and technology
graduates was higher than for students overall across the
board. The fact that engineering and technology students tend
to get a higher degree class regardless of ethnicity is
encouraging, but for Black and Asian men in particular, results
lag far behind women studying the same subject.
Figures 4.25 to 4.28 show that despite the overarching
differences observed in participation and attainment by
different characteristics, in engineering and technology
courses the picture is slightly more complex.
The engineering sector must be aware of the multiple identities
that students may have and those in HE should seek to
understand the implications of intersectionality when
designing curriculums, recruiting students and providing the
best possible education to any prospective entrants.
4.9 – Engineering and technology students by
domicile
The introduction to this chapter outlined some of the possible
effects of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European
Union. It’s important to understand in more detail what this will
mean for engineering HE.
In this section, we refer to UK-domiciled students, ‘other EU’
students, and ‘non-EU’ students, where ‘other EU’ students
refers to those studying in the UK who come from EU countries
outside of the UK.
Compared with the overall make-up of HE students in the UK,
engineering and technology has had a higher proportion of
entrants from both other EU and non-EU countries over the last
10 years (Figure 4.29).
4.129 L
i, Y. and Heath, A. ‘Persisting disadvantages: a study of labour market dynamics of ethnic unemployment and earnings in the UK (2009-2015)’, J. Eth. Mig. Studies, 2018.
130
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
Attainment
Figure 4.29 HE entrants by domicile (2009/10 to 2018/19) – UK
Engineering and technology entrants
Year
Total
All entrants
Other EU (%)
Non-EU (%)
Total
Other EU (%)
Non-EU (%)
9.5%
28.1%
1,185,260
5.4%
13.6%
2009/10
69,085
2010/11
68,060
9.6%
30.3%
1,145,435
5.7%
15.2%
2011/12
68,025
9.3%
28.3%
1,117,335
5.8%
15.5%
As with the other personal characteristics we examine in this
chapter, there were notable differences in attainment between
students from the UK and those from other countries.
For example, the HESA data shows that non-EU nationals who
qualified from engineering and technology first degrees in 2018
to 2019 received far lower degree classifications than their EU
counterparts – both UK domiciled and other EU students
(Figure 4.31). In 2018 to 2019, 80.6% of UK domiciled
engineering and technology qualifiers achieved a first or upper
second degree, compared with 84.2% of other EU students and
just 68.2% of non-EU qualifiers.
2012/13
61,945
9.1%
30.9%
972,255
5.8%
17.7%
2013/14
64,445
8.9%
32.0%
995,740
5.7%
18.0%
2014/15
65,910
8.5%
31.6%
988,890
5.8%
17.6%
2015/16
65,560
8.5%
30.0%
992,125
6.0%
17.4%
2016/17
64,460
9.0%
29.4%
1,013,485
6.2%
17.0%
2017/18
64,395
8.6%
30.5%
1,023,360
6.1%
18.1%
Figure 4.31 Engineering and technology first degree qualifiers
by degree class and domicile (2018/19) – UK
2018/19
64,380
8.2%
32.4%
1,047,530
6.0%
17.9%
First class honours
Source: HESA. ‘HESA student record 2009/10 to 2018/19 data, 2011 to 2020.
This figure displays proportions of non-UK domiciled entrants into higher education. The remainder are UK domiciled.
HE entrants with unknown domicile have been excluded from this analysis.
In the academic year 2018 to 2019, 40.6% of all entrants to
engineering and technology HE courses were from international
backgrounds, whereas the equivalent figure for all HE entrants
was 23.9%.
Since 2009 to 2010, the proportion of entrants from international
non-EU domiciles into engineering and technology courses and
across HE have both risen by 4.3 percentage points. However, in
the past year there has been a 1.9 percentage point increase in
engineering and technology entrants but a 0.2 percentage point
decrease overall (Figure 4.31).
Interestingly, the proportion of other EU students entering
engineering degrees has marginally decreased since 2009 to
2010, although the change has not been particularly noticeable.
A further discussion around EU students and staff in
engineering and technology subjects, and in STEM more widely,
will can be found in the thought piece from Universities UK on
page 133.
Level of study
The breakdown of engineering students by domicile is
according to the level of degree that they study, with those
entering postgraduate courses far more likely to come from
international backgrounds than those at undergraduate level.
Figure 4.30 displays the stark difference in domicile between
different levels of HE study, with a large majority of both
postgraduate taught and postgraduate research entrants in
2018 to 2019 heralding from outside the UK. Among
postgraduate research students, 13.4% were from the EU,
indicating that this may be a particular area of concern once the
final rules concerning international students have been agreed
with the EU.
39.6%
47.4%
Figure 4.30 Engineering and technology entrants by level of
study and domicile (2018/19) – UK
20.9%
First degree 72.6%
6.6%
29.7%
Upper second class honours
41.0%
36.8%
Other undergraduate 82.5%
38.5%
6.7% 10.8%
Postgraduate taught 29.9%
59.4%
10.7%
Postgraduate research 41.5%
Other EU
16.3%
It is also notable that students from other EU countries were far
more likely to obtain a first class degree in 2018 to 2019 (47.4%
of qualifiers) than their UK and non-EU peers (39.6% and 29.7%
of qualifiers respectively). This finding was also observed
across HE more widely, but the gap was smaller, with 35.5% of
all EU qualifiers achieving a first class degree, compared with
28.9% of UK and 21.9% of non-EU qualifiers.4.131
Given that EU students are the most successful engineering and
technology qualifiers, it will therefore be crucial to maintain the
attractiveness of engineering to this group. This may help to
ensure that a vital source of talented European engineers
entering into the engineering workforce in the UK remains
steady and is not impeded by Britain’s departure from the EU.
Students from non-EU countries were
far more likely to achieve lower degree
classifications than both UK-domiciled
students and other EU students.
13.0%
45.1%
13.4%
UK
Lower second class honours
Further highlighting the disparity in outcomes, almost one third
(31.8%) of engineering qualifiers from outside the EU achieved a
lower second class or a third class degree, compared with just
19.5% of UK qualifiers and 15.8% of EU qualifiers. Prior
attainment data on non-EU nationals is not available, but if we
assume similar levels of inherent ability in both non-EU and EU
(including UK) students, these findings may indicate that
engineering and technology courses in the UK are not geared
well towards those from non-EU countries. This may be related
to language barriers, or possibly wider pastoral issues that will
be crucial to address if the UK is to attract more students from
outside Europe after the UK’s departure from the EU.
Non-EU
24.7%
Third class honours / pass
3.2%
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
HE entrants with unknown domicile have been excluded from this analysis.
To view a more detailed breakdown of HE entrants in 2018/19 by subject area, level of study
and domicile, see Figure 4.30 in our Excel resource.
2.8%
7.1%
Over half of all postgraduate entrants to
engineering and technology courses
were international.
UK
Other EU
Non-EU
Source: HESA. 'HESA student record 2018/19' data, 2020.
HE entrants with unknown domicile have been excluded from this analysis.
Percentages presented in this figure exclude engineering and technology students studying
at 3 universities in the UK (Falmouth University, University of Worcester and London South
Bank University), which opted out of providing detailed data to organisations outside of the
HE sector and regulatory bodies in the academic year 2018 to 2019.
In HE overall, there were higher proportions of international
students at higher levels of study in 2018 to 2019, but the
difference was particularly sizeable for engineering and
technology students.4.130
4.130 H
ESA. ‘HESA student record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
131
4.131 Ibid.
132
4 – Higher education
4 – Higher education
The impact of leaving the EU on STEM and
engineering higher education
Universities are international organisations by nature and UK
institutions are no exception. They admit more international
students than universities in any other country except the
US,4.132 international staff make up nearly one third of all
academics and over 55% of UK research publications are
internationally co-authored.4.133, 4.134
The particular closeness of our links with European
counterparts becomes apparent when these international
metrics are broken down into EU versus non-EU components;
for instance, 13 of the UK’s top 20 research collaboration
partner countries are in the EU or European Economic Area
(EEA).4.135 Against this backdrop, it is perhaps understandable
that the UK university sector had profound reservations about
the implications of the decision to leave the EU.
It was feared that this rupture would decimate EU student
numbers, reducing the diversity of our learning environments
and stifling the talent pipeline; that it would lessen UK
universities’ attractiveness to researchers looking to forge a
career in knowledge creation; and that it would jeopardise
access to the Horizon 2020 programme, compromising UK
researchers’ ability to collaborate on ground-breaking research
projects with colleagues in the EU. Four years on from the
referendum and several months following the UK’s formal
withdrawal from the EU, we are now in a position to consider
how well-founded these fears were, what the specific
implications for STEM subjects have been and what the future
may hold after the current ‘stand-still’ period comes to an end
on 31 December 2020.
The outlook for EU student recruitment beyond the end of the
transition period is unclear. At present, tuition fees for EU
students have only been confirmed for 2020 to 2021 entry;
these students will continue to benefit from home fee status
for the full duration of their courses. Although it seems likely
that EU students will eventually be moved on to the same
footing as non-EU students, universities are asking the UK
government to extend the status quo at least for the 2021 to
2022 academic year.
EU staff
EU staff make up a substantial part of the university workforce
and universities rely on them to teach future engineers and
produce ground-breaking research. They represented 12.2% of
all UK university staff in 2018 to 2019, accounting for 17.5% of
staff on academic contracts and 7.0% of staff on nonacademic contracts.4.137
In terms of the composition of the overall international (nonUK) university community, EU academic staff make up a larger
proportion of the total international workforce than EU
students do of the international student cohort; 56.3% of all
international academics are from the EU as opposed to 29.5%
of international students. This proportion has continued to
grow over the past 5 years, with EU staff numbers increasing in
all STEM subject areas.
Change in other EU staff numbers between 2014/15 and 2018/19
Agriculture, forestry and veterinary science
+31%
Architecture and planning
+40%
Biological, mathematical and physical sciences
+14%
190%
Engineering and technology
+28%
Computer science
Medicine, dentistry and health
+25%
Change in other EU student numbers in STEM subjects between
2014/15 and 2018/19
Veterinary science
66%
Biological sciences
44%
Subjects allied to medicine
41%
Mathematical sciences
32%
Physical sciences
Student recruitment
28%
Contrary to initial fears, EU student enrolment at UK
universities has continued to rise steadily since the EU
referendum in 2016. Taking a 5-year perspective, there were
124,590 EU students (excluding UK nationals) registered at UK
universities in the academic year 2014 to 2015 and this grew to
143,025 in 2018 to 2019, an increase of 14.8%.4.136 In some
ways this is not surprising, given that there was no change in
EU student fee status during this time, so they continued to
qualify for home fee status and access to the tuition fee loan.
Most STEM subjects have outperformed this trend, albeit with
engineering and technology showing the smallest increase.
Agriculture and related subjects
27%
Of course, the sheer number of staff does not tell the whole
story. In the Universities and Colleges Employers Association’s
latest biennial report on the UK higher education workforce,4.138
published in November 2019, around one quarter of
universities reported that they had experienced a moderate to
significant impact on recruiting (23%) and retaining (26%) EU
staff over the past 12 months, and a similar number expect this
picture to get worse in the future. But it is about more than just
attracting staff to relocate; using staff surveys, HR directors
have also perceived a decline in EU staff wellbeing since the EU
referendum. They reported that the political turbulence, media
coverage of EU citizens in the UK and uncertainty over future
access to EU research and mobility funding have all taken their
toll on the EU workforce.
Medicine and dentistry
26%
Engineering and technology
4.132 O
ECD. ‘Education at a glance 2019 - OECD indicators’, 2019.
4.133 H
ESA. ‘HESA staff record 2018/19’ data, 2019.
4.134 E
lsevier. ‘SciVal database’ data, 2020.
4.135 Ibid.
4.136 H
ESA. ‘HESA student record 2014/15 to 2018/19’ data, 2016 to 2020.
133
EU research and mobility funding
UK universities have benefitted massively from EU programme
funding for research and mobility in recent years. According to
the HESA finance return for 2017 to 2018, 11.8% of total
university research income for STEM subjects came from EU
government sources, with some engineering subjects
receiving an even higher proportion. 4.139
In addition to the financial dividends, access to these
programmes brings substantial added value, such as the
ability to collaborate with world leading counterparts from
hubs of excellence that do not exist in the UK. This is why it is
essential that the UK remains part of the next EU research
programme, Horizon Europe, which kicks off in 2021.
2021 and beyond
To a large extent, the question of how UK university
engineering faculties’ international makeup will evolve in
coming years will depend on government policy in areas like
tuition fee status and immigration. But in other areas, such as
access to EU programmes, universities on both sides of the
Channel are now looking to UK and EU negotiators to secure a
future partnership which continues to facilitate university
exchange and collaboration after the end of the stand-still
period on 31 December 2020. Given the strong and widely
acknowledged mutual benefit of a positive outcome for both
sides, there is reason to be optimistic that a promising
agreement can be achieved. However, this will rely on isolating
these discussions from any negative fallout from wider trade
negotiations.
Share of total research income from EU government sources in 2017/18
13%
28.4%
16.8%
16.7%
IT, systems sciences and computer software engineering
Peter Mason,
Policy Manager,
Europe (Research and Innovation),
Universities UK International
UK universities are unequivocal about how highly they value
their international staff. To ensure that EU staff continue to feel
welcomed in the UK research community, universities are
counting on the UK government to put forward policies to
provide certainty for current and prospective European staff.
One of the most important elements will be the future
immigration system that will be put in place in January 2021 to
replace EU free movement. The initial signs show some
promise for STEM subjects; the new points-based system that
the government has proposed prioritises STEM by offering
more points for anyone holding a STEM doctorate, and all
researchers will be eligible to apply for a Global Talent Visa,
which will replace the current Tier 1 visa system.
Chemical engineering
16.0%
14.1%
Electrical, electronic and computer engineering
Mechanical, aerospace and production engineering
12.0%
Civil engineering
11.1%
General engineering
Mineral, metallurgy andmaterials engineering
4.137 H
ESA. ‘HESA staff record 2018/19’ data, 2020.
4.138 U
CEA. ‘Higher Education workforce report 2019’, 2019.
4.139 HESA. ‘HESA finance record 2017/18’ data, 2019.
134
Engineering UK 2020 is produced with the support of the members
and fellows of the following Professional Engineering Institutions:
EngineeringUK is grateful to the following,
who contributed case studies to this report:
BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT
Julia Adamson
Director of Education, BCS, The Chartered
Institute for IT
Jamie McKane
4th year student, Mechanical Engineering,
University of Bristol
Kikelomo Agunbiade
National Programme Director, Researchers
in Schools, The Brilliant Club
Jamie Menzies
Young STEM Leader Project Officer, SSERC
British Institute of Non-Destructive Testing (BINDT)
Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE)
Chartered Institution of Highways & Transportation (CIHT)
Chartered Institute of Plumbing and Heating Engineering (CIPHE)
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management (CIWEM)
Energy Institute (EI)
Institution of Agricultural Engineers (IAgrE)
Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE)
Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE)
Institute of Cast Metals Engineers (ICME)
Institution of Engineering Designers (IED)
Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET)
Institution of Fire Engineers (IFE)
Institution of Gas Engineers and Managers (IGEM)
Institute of Highway Engineers (IHE)
Institute of Healthcare Engineering and Estate Management (IHEEM)
Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP)
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science & Technology (IMarEST)
Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IMechE)
Institute of Measurement and Control (InstMC)
Institution of Royal Engineers (InstRE)
Suzanne Baltay
University Relations, Airbus Global University
Partnership Programme
Vicky Bullivant
Group Head of Sustainable Business, Drax
Heather Came
1st year apprentice, Flybe Training Academy, Exeter
Natalie Cheung
STEM Ambassador Coordinator, STEM Learning
Penny Morton
President, The Female Engineering Society
(FemEng), University of Glasgow
Chris Shirley
Apprentice Services Manager, Network Rail
Mark Smith
CEO, Ada National College for Digital Skills
Tom Thayer
HPC Inspire Education Lead, EDF
Amanda Dickins
Head of Impact and Development, STEM Learning
Rosalind Tsang
Programme Leader, Professional Construction,
Blackpool and The Fylde College
Jamie East
Course Leader, National College for Nuclear
Richard Warenisca
Project Manager, Future Teaching Scholars
Ruth Gilligan
Assistant Director for Equality Charters, Advance HE
Billy Wong
Associate Professor, Widening Participation,
University of Reading
Clare Geldard
Executive Director, Now Teach
Janet Holloway
Associate Director Standards for Design, Development
and Evaluation of General Qualifications, Ofqual
Institute of Acoustics (IOA)
Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3)
Institute of Physics (IOP)
Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine (IPEM)
Institution of Railway Signal Engineers (IRSE)
Institution of Structural Engineers (IStructE)
Institute of Water
Nuclear Institute (NI)
Royal Academy of Engineering (RaEng)
Royal Aeronautical Society (RAeS)
Royal Institution of Naval Architects (RINA)
Society of Environmental Engineers (SEE)
The Society of Operations Engineers (SOE)
The Welding Institute (TWI)
F
M
NG
GLASGOW
UNIVERSITY’S
FEMALE
ENGINEERS